Liberals vs Conservatives

[VeeDubb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
[QB]
Either way you're stuck with them ..you can either train them (more programs and $$$) and displace others that don't get the training (more on the unemployment take) ..or jail them when they can't make a living (more $$$$ and more programs) ..or you can just let them be.

Some things have no favorable solution for all concerned.

---

Actually, I'm not so sure that everything is a zero-sum game. With the restructuring of social programs, there will undoubtedly be new winners and losers. But the question is, will there be more winners than losers?

If we restructured social programs (which doesn't mean throwing more money at it necessarily) so that it pays more to be employed (even under minimum wage jobs) than unemployed, I think this will benefit society collectively. Sure some working people will be displaced by those that all of a sudden enter the work force, but I think it would elevate society at an aggregate level.

Think of it this way, there are some productive individuals who choose not to work because it doesn't pay. If you restructure social programs so that most of these unemployed productive types all of a sudden have an incentive to work, who will they displace? .....most likely individuals that are less productive than they are.

All of a sudden, average productivity goes up, and misallocation of labor is reduced. Society gains in aggregate productivity and wealth which means the pie gets bigger. This means more dollars to fund other social programs etc.

Same logic can be applied to many sectors of the economy and many government policies.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

With the restructuring of social programs, there will undoubtedly be new winners and losers. But the question is, will there be more winners than losers?

---

This (in my imagination) only be a "if you can't raise the bridge ...lower the river" type thing.

We've got a 5% unemployment rate in an expanding economy ...a 6% in a receding one.

Where are these people going to fit ..the chronically unemployed??? Are you going to put them on a rotating schedule of public dole? Are you going to federally mandate more time off for the rest of the population to "make room" for them??

Don't you see ...all solutions to this problem lead you down the socialist path.....

Indeed I submit that the term "solution" implies it. So ..you either somehow ..someway take care of them ...or abandon them. Either path leads to some type of consequence.

 

[mnztr]

quote:

---

You should have to pass a test before you are allowed to have a kid. If you have one and can't take care of it then you should be spayed/neutered so you can't have anymore. There I fixed that problem. You got any other you want me to handle. Does this make me a liberal or a conservative? I get confused with all of the labeling

---

Actually, that is the same solution as Hitler, congrats.

 

[VeeDubb]

quote:

---

This (in my imagination) only be a "if you can't raise the bridge ...lower the river" type thing.

We've got a 5% unemployment rate in an expanding economy ...a 6% in a receding one.

Where are these people going to fit ..the chronically unemployed??? Are you going to put them on a rotating schedule of public dole? Are you going to federally mandate more time off for the rest of the population to "make room" for them??

Don't you see ...all solutions to this problem lead you down the socialist path.....

Indeed I submit that the term "solution" implies it. So ..you either somehow ..someway take care of them ...or abandon them. Either path leads to some type of consequence. [/QB]

---

Gary,
I think you missed the point of my post. My fault because I didn't choose my words very well.

Let me try again. First I am not opposed to some degree of socialism so long as it is "enlightened" socialism and not based on some pie in the sky concept.

I agree that there will always be unemployment in any economy. (One can argue about what the % is but let's go with 5%). I have no problems with providing the necessities of life for 5% of individuals who, due to random chance of birth, happen to be so unproductive that they probably can't get a job even if they wanted to. I believe the rest of us have a responsibility to take care of them.

The problem is, with current social programs, there are enough perverse incentives in them that some perfective productive individuals choose not to work because it doesn't pay to do so. That means that 5% will be comprised of both productive and unproductive individuals.

There are two problems with this. a) It pi$$ed off many people who are working to fund the productive unemployed types. b) We are losing in aggregate productivity because some productive individuals are loafing.

Now if you restructure the incentives so that everyone would be better off with a job rather than without (economically speaking), then many productive workers will become employed. Who will they displace? Mostly workers who are less productive than they are. Hence, aggregate productivity can only go up. The composition of the 5% unemployed also changes. Now that 5% will be primarly comprised of the least capable in society (who truly need the most help). Also, because average productivity has gone up, there is more wealth to available for helping that 5%.
The gains outweigh the losses and it is not a zero sum game.

 

[Gary Allan]

Okay ..I'm up for alternatives...

Let's hear from our right wing members (remember, I'm an independant

)

What is your offering to solve the problems of the poor.

Please ..something besides banishment to Hillary's district...

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Okay ..I'm up for alternatives...

Let's hear from our right wing members (remember, I'm an independant

)

What is your offering to solve the problems of the poor.

Please ..something besides banishment to Hillary's district...

---

Well giving the poor money hasn't helped. The bulk of the poor are that way bc of the collapse of the family. Its a perpetuating cycle and apparently it seems to instill a built in rebellion against success for the younger generation. Black and Hispanic minorities view doing well in school as being "white".

The latest report of the Harrisburg school district came out. One of the Harrisburg's H.S. (primarily black) had a failure rate of 94% standardized math test in the 11 th grade. That is a situation that the Government can't change.

Until these folks help themselves just a tiny bit-the poor will stay poor.

 

[VeeDubb]

quote:

---

Let's hear from our right wing members (remember, I'm an independant

)

[/QB]

---

Guess that leaves me out too. I'm also an independent. In fact, I don't even like to throw around words like "liberal" or "conservative" because instant labeling and stereotyping occurs.

 

[labman]

Al, you are right about some minorities seeing doing well in school as ''White''. Still it is possible to improve education. There are even some public schools that are doing a fine job educating minorities. Unfortunately the best hope for most blacks and hispanics that want to learn is vouchers. Vouchers help the poor, but hurt teachers' unions and other Democratic Party's special interests.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Until these folks help themselves just a tiny bit-the poor will stay poor.

---

and

quote:

---

Al, you are right about some minorities seeing doing well in school as ''White''.

---

Well, how does this apply to the "white" ones? You know ..the ones that compose MOST of those receiving public assistance. The ones that aren't "dense packed" in projects and urban centers???

What good is a decent education going to do them in the hills of central PA or WV ...or Tobaco Rd ..upstate NY, Alabama, Maine??

 

[carrera79]

Gary, come on. I see your point, and there are definitely more whites recieving social assistance. And, rednecks tend to look down on their peers who try hard in school as well, however, that attitude tends to permeate the atmosphere of minority leadership. The likes of the Reverend Jackson are only exacerbating the situation. Bill Cosby has the right frame of mind. This problem should be attacked in poor white communities as well, but I feel that some poor minorities are given a lesser chance simply because their role models have gotten where they are because they are, in the words of a local radio host, "race baiting poverty pimps"

 

[Gary Allan]

Absolutely! You just want to smack 'em up side the head and say "You're crippling them, you jacka$$!".

I still like the Norplant or reversible tubal ligation requirement for public assistance. This would kinda put a "choke point" in place for this "breeder reactor".

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Well, how does this apply to the "white" ones? You know ..the ones that compose MOST of those receiving public assistance.

---

Yes, because whites are currently some 70% of the population, whereas blacks are some 12%.

As a percentage of their respective populations, however, there are more blacks than whites on public assistance.

So, Gary, your point was what? That whites are (currently) the majority population in this country? I believe that anyone not living under a rock could see that without your help.

If that wasn't your point, then I don't believe you had a point.

 

[Gary Allan]

Brian,

Typically when people think of welfare ..they automatically think: black, ghetto, crack smoking, baby puking, lazy, trash.

Now I'll grant you that the percentage of blacks on welfare is disproportionate with their % of the population.

Why is that? During my childhood, we had a fairly "orderly" society. Our blacks were neatly tucked away in poverty and segregated. Our leaders and most people in general didn't see too much wrong with it ..or just didn't think about it much.

With the "Great Society" ...we still kept blacks segregated ...we just passified them with money. Welfare kept them still neatly tucked away in cradle to grave poverty.

READ: We still didn't want to share the mainstream way of life with them ..and didn't.

Then the enforcement of equal civil rights came around ...and after 200 years of being stuck in side a meat grinder of the a$$ end of our culture you expect some type of gratitude and civility??

Blacks were just as fooled by the "liberation". They thought that they would start living the life that most of the white people did. Better schools ..safer streets ...more opportunity.....

..but what they ended up with is integrated ghettos.

That is, we opened many doors ...but few had the means to walk through any of them ..at least on the way "out".

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
A three minute conversation with them confirms that they are never getting out of the box they are in.

---

I'm not so sure I'd write anyone off that quick.

Especially when they have no compelling reason to change their behavior. As long as the welfare checks keep coming and society never sends a strong message against out-of-wedlock births and deadbeat dads--why should anything change?

People respond to their environment. Our social policies in the last 40 years seem to have created the sort of environment where this behavior is going to increase.

As someone said, what's the exit strategy for the war on poverty? It's not working.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
That is, we opened many doors ...but few had the means to walk through any of them ..at least on the way "out".

---

If you spend half your life being told that you can't, you'll likely never try--even though you likely CAN if you tried.

There are some powerful psychological barriers to success, they need to be addressed--in a manner that actually deals with the problem and not one that's just a band-aid fix that creates additional barriers.

 

[Gary Allan]

Brian

I have little sympathy for the poor, per se`. That is, people usually end up with what they deserve. There are enough pathways out of poverty for those truly motivated to do so. Is it easy? No ..but neither is putting two or three kids through college in a 4 bedroom colonial in the burbs.

Most of the welfare people that I'm exposed to are just not capable of anything beyond what they've got. Not only don't they know any other way of life ..it's turned them into one not capable of functioning in a normal competitive environment. I see unwed mothers ...they all look like young lovely people with a chance at a decent go at life. A three minute conversation with them confirms that they are never getting out of the box they are in.

Where does it leave us ...right where we're at. Dead weight.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
If you spend half your life being told that you can't, you'll likely never try--even though you likely CAN if you tried.

There are some powerful psychological barriers to success, they need to be addressed--in a manner that actually deals with the problem and not one that's just a band-aid fix that creates additional barriers.

---

Brian, I don't agree with most of what you say, but you hit the nail on the head with that post.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
A three minute conversation with them confirms that they are never getting out of the box they are in.

---

I think it needs to be 5 minutes

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill.

 

[olddognewtrks]

For the moment, I won't bow to any labels. If you vote for me for All Powerful Benevolent King,

I promise to get it all straightened out. Special cushy jobs for all BITOG folks.

 

[ant]

The supposed war on poverty has been an unmitigated disaster for whites and black; rich and poor. However, blacks have been more severely impacted by this misguided attempt to change human nature. Liberals have tried to free blacks from physical and social segregation, and have offered political and physical segregation instead. Public assistance is a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for democrats at the nation’s expense. Democrats/liberals play the numbers game; they know a poor man’s vote can be bought at a lower cost than the vote of a rich man.

The only time democrats/liberals think of the poor is during their time at the political fund raisers when they tell each other how much they care about the disadvantaged. After which, their driver speeds through the urban areas enroute to the gated community.

Democrat/liberals couldn’t care less that their actions have severely damaged several generations and tens of millions of poor people. Public assistance programs as currently fashioned have and will continue to destroy the family unit. This is the very same structure that was an extremely important factor in enabling humans to separate themselves from other animals.

Destroying the family structure has resulted in the rapid increase in illegitimate births and the resulting hardships for the mother. How can a teenage mother of four continue or acquire an education of any value? How can someone be self sufficient and pull themselves out of poverty without an education?

Destroying the family structure has resulted in more and more elderly people dieing alone after living their declining years in sorrow.

Destroying the family structure has resulted in resentment and the apparent loss of personal pride. Many people, who profess to have too much pride to ask a neighbor for a cup of sugar, have no problem asking the government to force the neighbor to pay for their food and medicine.

The only answer is freedom.