Monkeyboy wrote:Can we agree that people deserve to eat, even if they don't have good employment skills?

Of course

pacino, were you complaining about strawmen?

Monkeyboy wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Weird that you say something about someone else not understanding that dividing the pie differently doesn't change the size of the pie, but then you say that a few people having huge amounts of wealth doesn't hurt anyone else. A few people having wealth doesn't enlarge the pie so that others can take more. It just means those other people have less, and many of them are hurt by that fact.

I hate how bill gates is taking money from poor people.

Of course, that doesn't dispute what I said at all.

You said that "a few people having more...means those other people have less." Perhaps I did misunderstand that string of sentences suggesting that the economic success of the wealthy comes at the expense of the poor.

If you work for a wage, someone is stealing the product of your labor from you.

Monkeyboy wrote:Webb/Warren, make it happen

As I've said, it has to be both of them. If it's just Webb, he won't take enough beer-track votes from Hillary and he'll come off as a sexist bully. If it's just Warren, she's something less than Bill Bradley to Hillary's Al Gore.

But if they're both in, and they focus on her vulnerabilities and point up her trimmings, contradictions and sellouts--and both are about a million times more authentic and sincere than Hillary after a quarter-century in national politics--they have a real shot to stop her.

This whole immigration thing sucks. But maybe something good will come from it.

Why it sucks: this is the clearest example I can remember of our dysfunctional politics. The action the president is about to take is broadly popular and, so far as I've seen, there's very little substance grounds to oppose it. But it will never, ever come to the floor of the House of Representatives, because members of the unrepresentative majority of an unrepresentative majority have no political incentive to vote yes and every political reason to vote no. So his choices are either to accede to the irrationality of the system, perpetuating real personal and economic harm to millions of people; or to take an action that, if not illegal (and, based on the similar past actions of Republican presidents, it's not illegal), still expands the scope of executive power in new and unsettling ways. I don't think the Republicans can possibly hate this president any more than they do, or irrationally try to "stop him" any more than they already are, without blowback that their smarter tacticians are willing to accept. But the president isn't the only Democrat in the capital (it only feels that way…), and I'm sure this will poison the well in some new way.

Why something good might come from it: there must come a point where even the hardest-core on the right realize, or are brought to the realization, that ultra-partisanship can reach a point of diminishing returns. If this isn't that, I'm not sure what is. The Chamber of Commerce is onboard with this, I'm guessing by their silence. Business money obviously had a lot to do with this month's election results. Maybe they can not only somewhat mute the tangible response to Obama's action, but push the new majority to take certain steps that might not have "majority of the majority" support within an embarrassingly unrepresentative caucus, but can win a clean majority vote and are wanted by the country. Who knows: this sort of thing might even raise the approval of the Congress above that of head lice, which presumably would please the leaders of its new majority.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Can we agree that people deserve to eat, even if they don't have good employment skills?

Of course

pacino, were you complaining about strawmen?

I didn't hold that up as his argument. I was asking if we can agree on something as basic as that. It wasn't a strawman.

One thing that frustrates me about this topic is that there's this hardline from republicans that we can't help people because then they won't learn to help themselves. But I know they probably don't really believe we should do absolutely nothing for people who are struggling, so the question becomes how much should we do. I started at the most basic thing, food. Can we agree on that?

I was also being pretty sarcastic, which I think was obvious.

TenuredVulture wrote:If you work for a wage, someone is stealing the product of your labor from you.

Steal... I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Monkeyboy wrote:[I was also being pretty sarcastic, which I think was obvious.

I didnt realize it was levity. I thought you were really unsure whether conservatives on this board agree that poor people deserve to not die (ie. eat).

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Weird that you say something about someone else not understanding that dividing the pie differently doesn't change the size of the pie, but then you say that a few people having huge amounts of wealth doesn't hurt anyone else. A few people having wealth doesn't enlarge the pie so that others can take more. It just means those other people have less, and many of them are hurt by that fact.

I hate how bill gates is taking money from poor people.

Of course, that doesn't dispute what I said at all.

You said that "a few people having more...means those other people have less." Perhaps I did misunderstand that string of sentences suggesting that the economic success of the wealthy comes at the expense of the poor.

between this and your last post, you're just being obtuse.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:[I was also being pretty sarcastic, which I think was obvious.

I didnt realize it was levity. I thought you were really unsure whether conservatives on this board agree that poor people deserve to not die (ie. eat).

Bolded the important part. It's probably not a good idea, even though we all do it at times, to conflate the (obviously reasonable, even-handed and, let's just say it, really quite attractive) partisans here with their counterparts in the echo chambers or, heaven forbid, Congress…

Though I veer into this in frustrated moments--and I do think there's a small bloc, whom we might call sado-libertarians, who are so self-righteous that they do somewhat get off on the misfortune of those who offend their worldview (and no doubt, there's a corresponding group on the left… Iron Law of Emulation and all that)--I don't really think that most Republicans actively wish ill on the poor. It's more like they just really, really wish they'd go away, and their frustration that this doesn't happen sometimes manifests in unpleasant ways.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:[I was also being pretty sarcastic, which I think was obvious.

I didnt realize it was levity. I thought you were really unsure whether conservatives on this board agree that poor people deserve to not die (ie. eat).

I am not sure how far the idea goes and I've never heard any of the board conservatives articulate their position on the limits of their idea. If helping the poor hurts them in the long run, then why should you feed them? I'm serious. Where is the line of acceptable help?

If I feel the need to start with the most basic thing, it's because I haven't heard a whiff of what you really believe when it comes to how far you're willing to take your style of social darwinism.

Many people believe that wealth is like a fixed pie, and the more money that wealthy people have, the less is "left" for the poor. These folks also sometimes argue that labor is slavery, or that all corporations are designed to exploit their workers. There have been a half dozen comments on the last few pages that have these themes, so I cannot assume that every one is sarcastic. I'm sorry if your statements were not actually your beliefs, but were caricatures of other liberals. It's the internet, and so I cannot pick up on tone.

Werthless wrote:Many people believe that wealth is like a fixed pie, and the more money that wealthy people have, the less is "left" for the poor. These folks also sometimes argue that labor is slavery, or that all corporations are designed to exploit their workers. There have been a half dozen comments on the last few pages that have these themes, so I cannot assume that every one is sarcastic. I'm sorry if your statements were not actually your beliefs, but were caricatures of other liberals. It's the internet, and so I cannot pick up on tone.

You're still missing the point. TP is the one who said the thing about the pie. What I did was point out the inconsistency in what he was saying. I was being somewhat sarcastic by mentioning the job skills, but I was more making a point, the point I mentioned in my last post. Where is the line where your theory of getting the most out of people begins? I assume you won't let people starve. Will you let them be homeless or should we provide shelter? What about clothes? Should we provide clothes or are clothes too good for those leeches? I'm serious. I'd really like to know where the line is because I really have have no idea. I get that you have a social engineering plan and that plan involves not helping the poor because they won't learn to help themselves, but I have nothing beyond that. What amount of help won't poison their ability to help themselves? If you are going to espouse this plan, you should have to say where the line is.

Incoming Nevada House Speaker is Quite The Piece of Work


HEY 702.....

(sigh)

"Handouts", "nanny state", "redistribution", "entitlement", "help themselves"... code words from those that hold a worldview that romanticizes the idealism of the good ol' days; the American Dream, circa 1950s.

Oddly enough, in the 1950s, most of those who would identify with the ideaology of today's conservative middle class were more than OK with government spending, "handouts", etc. It was an era with sky-high marginal tax rates and large government bureaucracies. Enormous public works projects like building the interstate highway system. VA loans and FHA loans and college loans and large state education systems. Essentially, government programs that helped whites move from the cities to the suburbs. Even food stamps and disability benefits and widespread industrial unionization were A-OK fine and dandy.

But as soon as people who didn’t look like them started breaking down the barriers to entry, those same tax systems and bureaucracies and public spendings became an intrusive nanny state that kept the undeserving and lazy in a perpetual state of dependency.

Bucky wrote:Incoming Nevada House Speaker is Quite The Piece of Work

Holy crap. That stuff wouldn't even fly here in Virginia. Our politicians are much more genteel in their bigotry and homophobia.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:(sigh)

"Handouts", "nanny state", "redistribution", "entitlement", "help themselves"... code words from those that hold a worldview that romanticizes the idealism of the good ol' days; the American Dream, circa 1950s.

Oddly enough, in the 1950s, most of those who would identify with the ideaology of today's conservative middle class were more than OK with government spending, "handouts", etc. It was an era with sky-high marginal tax rates and large government bureaucracies. Enormous public works projects like building the interstate highway system. VA loans and FHA loans and college loans and large state education systems. Essentially, government programs that helped whites move from the cities to the suburbs. Even food stamps and disability benefits and widespread industrial unionization were A-OK fine and dandy.

But as soon as people who didn’t look like them started breaking down the barriers to entry, those same tax systems and bureaucracies and public spendings became an intrusive nanny state that kept the undeserving and lazy in a perpetual state of dependency.

good post

Monkeyboy wrote:

Werthless wrote:Many people believe that wealth is like a fixed pie, and the more money that wealthy people have, the less is "left" for the poor. These folks also sometimes argue that labor is slavery, or that all corporations are designed to exploit their workers. There have been a half dozen comments on the last few pages that have these themes, so I cannot assume that every one is sarcastic. I'm sorry if your statements were not actually your beliefs, but were caricatures of other liberals. It's the internet, and so I cannot pick up on tone.

You're still missing the point. TP is the one who said the thing about the pie. What I did was point out the inconsistency in what he was saying. I was being somewhat sarcastic by mentioning the job skills, but I was more making a point, the point I mentioned in my last post. Where is the line where your theory of getting the most out of people begins? I assume you won't let people starve. Will you let them be homeless or should we provide shelter? What about clothes? Should we provide clothes or are clothes too good for those leeches? I'm serious. I'd really like to know where the line is because I really have have no idea. I get that you have a social engineering plan and that plan involves not helping the poor because they won't learn to help themselves, but I have nothing beyond that. What amount of help won't poison their ability to help themselves? If you are going to espouse this plan, you should have to say where the line is.

I'll let you know when I write a book for how to end poverty. I don't have the answer yet, unfortunately. But I do know that if someone can end poverty without destroying the economy, I hope they get richly compensated for their great idea.

I realize that TP and I are making arguments at the same time, and it is easy to lump us together when arguing against "conservatism." And while we may have very different opinions about what solutions are feasible/reasonable, we agree that the current War on Poverty is not working. I hope that we can all agree that we want government to work, use money effectively, and be held accountable for how they use our money.

Here is a related article about "saving the world" that my idealistic liberal friend put on her facebook page. It talks about the difficulty in scaling solutions that may work on the micro level, and the difficulty in retaining accountability on programs that may work on a small scale.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1201 ... lan-fix-it

So you're not going to answer the simple question. If you can't answer that question, how can you possibly have an opinion on this stuff? I'd really like to know what is reasonable to you in terms of how poorly someone at the bottom should have to live to motivate them to work. I'm not asking you to write a book, so you can drop that nonsense. I'm asking a simple question. You believe we are giving out too many entitlements and these entitlements keep the poor from learning how to take care of themselves. If that's your view, fine, but what is a reasonable level of poverty that will teach someone how to work without degrading their lives to the point that they will lose the will to do anything. I posted a similar thought a few days ago. There will always be people at the bottom of any stratified economic system. What we need to decide is how low we are comfortable having those people fall before we feel like we should step in and help. All we've established so far is that it's somewhere above starving to death, and I'm not even positive that's been established.

See, I think most people who have the view that the poor need to be suffering in order to learn how to live have never given much thought to how far they are willing to push that philosophy. And the people who have thought about it would prefer not to answer because the answer makes them look bad.

So, the poor should have food? Should they also have shelter or should they be looking for a job at the same time they are trying to get off the streets?