Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Sep 29, 2011.
I've been trying to tell him that for months. But then I read a post by his wife, and suddenly I understand why a man would want to write thousands and thousands of words per post.
As Shakespeare said, brevity is the soul of wit. A truly inteligent person could make a point clearly and concisely.
Could very well be, but does that make it ok to lie and spread misinformation for the sake of political on upsmanship ????
There were a whole lot of dots that did not connect here, except in people's minds that were easily influenced by bloggers.
Yes. A truly intelligent person could. One could also decide to make the point using more background information and speculation, which would require more effort and description. depend on the idea.
The real question is: Why would a thread that had potential for an intelligent discourse about a serious subject would be hijacked by someone just for the purpose of criticizing the perceived lack of brevity? Reeks of a lack of understanding, willful ignorance and a strong desire to avoid the questions put forth- sadly not uncommon in our society. The obvoius response would have been to go to another thread or a different discussion forum. Very curious and a bit creepy.
Nice try at elevating the discourse, PFinV. Unfortunately, you may have inadvertantly shown how hard it is to do here, given the petty and incapable responses.
We understand that if something is 'free' some/many will take advantage of it whether they 'need' it or not. This of course has nothing to do with the costs and benefits of these programs.
The validity of criticism of particular social programs are not attached to the whether the person expressing the opinion is a hypocrite or not.
I am close to 60, I don't anticipate getting the benefits from SS and Medicare. This is because the programs are not sustainable. I can certainly understand why people who were lied to by government that the programs would be there when they retired are upset when the programs are on the road to failure. Especially since the government confiscates ~14% of a workers wages ( plus the ~3% for medicare.I never suffered from those illusions.
If instead of having ~14% of the avg workers salary confiscated for a ponzi scheme and for politicians to spend we had a program like they have in Chile the country and seniors would be far better off IMO.
Well the first thing is to rid ourselves of the notion of class altogether of course. We should be viewed as American's and not members of a balkanized group of citizens, but the political classes need division to help them acquire and maintain power.
I have never heard anyone say that, seems like a straw man. Certainly SOME work the system to live off the sweat of others rather than provide for themselves. I think especially in this economy most people who are unemployed would rather have a good job.
Everyone I talk to differentiates between people who follow the rules of this society and immigrate legally and those who 'break in line' and enter the country illegally. IMO many are more angry with the government for not doing their job of securing the boarders more than the people who break the law coming. The government shouldn't be enablers for criminal behavior.
Many reject this line of thought, The Social Sciences are rife with political dogma's directing their research. Not even sure they should be classified as sciences the way say mathematics and physics are.
Depends on whether one believes that centralized authority should direct the affairs of men to reach the best outcome, this was the model followed by Europe and despotic regimes throughout history. In the past it was embodied in the feudal system with serf and royalty, it has been replaced by the Communist and Socialist states where centralized planning is valued since the serfs are unable to run their own affairs.
The American premise was fundamentally that individuals had inalienable right given by God that government didn't have the right to infringe on. Indeed our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were documents written to restrict the power of government over the governed. Many people believe that relationship has been eroded with the notion that somehow government gives us rights, rather than citizens giving the government the power to do a limited set of things.
When raising children if they are not taught about rights and attendant responsibilities and are treated like children their growth will be stunted and they will never reach their potential, the same will happen when the state fears freedom because of a presumption that people who aren't members of the party/elites aren't capable of conducting their own affairs.
I like the American idea of Natural Rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
He could also spell intelligent correctly.
P.S. Thanks for the $5.00. As you can see, I bought a sense of humor with it as suggested.
No, misinformation is wrong in both cases.
Good gravy, the spelling nazi strikes again.
Ironic that your husband always begs our forgiveness for his poor grammar and spelling when he posts from his phone, yet you refuse to afford any of the rest of us the same courtesy.
No wonder he spends so much time writing 10,000 word essays here. If I had to live with you, I'm sure I'd do the same. :rofl: :rofl:
First, thanks for you guys who took the thread seriously... I think now and then it's cool to have a thoughtful and civil thread, even though we know in general we all go nuts. Cool beans. Also a personal thanks for those who posted in defense of my posts, done w/that subject.
I wish we could nest quotes easily... Maybe we can, but I don't know how. so I'm going to cut and paste and laboriously indicate the quotes so I don't forget what each point was about LOL...
[redacted: I site other such cases, B5's comment is "see above."]
Here's where being precise is useful, and realizing we have in our hands the choice of how to solve problems.
In the case of Social Security, the latest indication I saw is that after exhaustion of the trust fund, with SS reduced to "pay as you go," you're still looking at something like a 30% haircut measured against the presently estimated benefit-- that's if nothing's done.
Now the estimate of when that happens is probably getting sooner and sooner as we reduce the payroll tax for multiple years. But we are still well into the territory of the majority of the benefit being paid, no matter when the trust fund is spent down.
Now - it's valid to say if you are a high earner that you're not getting all of your money back, because the social security benefit formula has two "bend points." Because the sum total of all the progressive features in all government taxation schemes still doesn't scratch the surface of the rate of bifurcation of people's incomes/lifestyles, I regard the progressivity of the system as pretty small, compared to our needs as a people.
Please note: I don't argue for "equality of outcomes." But I do argue that it must be possible for the poor to make it, and for the middle class to keep pace proportionately with the rich.
On a personal level, I too will get less than I put in.
But I would consider guaranteeing 70% of the present "projected" benefit as a social good I am willing to make that sacrifice for. I'm not rich, and I spend what I make far too often. I have modest plans for retirement. I could change my habits and goals and shoot for the vineyard or the house in the hamptons. But my experiences with what happens at the end of life, through family, and my knowledge of myself, militate for the interpretation that while my mind functions, I am rich. While I can care for myself, I am rich. When that goes away, in either case, I am poor... so I am okay for planning a retirement in which I am reasonably indemnified against outliving my money, but do not have a lot of luxuries. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think I'm heading for Alpo.
This understanding on my own part of what constitutes wealth plays into my willingness to forego some earnings for a society-wide program.
Thought experiment, B5: Since we are talking about SS, and the worst thing we project is a sooner (rather than more distant) date that the benefit would be reduced to 70% of the projected amount: Do you see value in preserving the 70%?
[redacted: another agreement that we are all subject to the hypocritical instinct.]
This is interesting to me... Adams did not write in a vacuum, of course, and he probably did not write the above without a thought about his libertine Virginian comrade in arms, Jefferson. But that aside... let's work with how you've expanded his statement.
I think that (1) above affects a polity insofar as that polity benefits from the perception of the larger thing than the individual.
There's 2 ways I think we benefit: A, to the extent that each feel our part in society is analogous to the "something larger" object in religion, i.e., that there's a reality to the country, as more than x million individuals.
B, "something larger than ourselves" could also affect our behavior, because we will internalize the "something larger's" view of our behavior.
Question: can one be moral, but not religious, as regards you statement (1)? I think the answer is yes. You need only find an irreligious member of the armed forces, or for that matter, an irreligious public servant of any kind to verify this (I think, at least -- unless I misunderstand your meaning.)
(2) above speaks to having faith and hope, regardless of challenges that must be faced by the then-new nation (and of course, at present as well.)
It's an astute observation. If this is Adams' view as well, I think it has a lot to tell us about our present state of affairs.
If Adams' moral and religious country were confronted with our present challenges, one would assume, it would not fall into a morass of cynicism and "things that can't be done." Jefferson shares this trust in the Creator (in his version); see Manifest Destiny. God (or the Creator) is in His heaven, and all is right, even if all seems wrong.
Yet curiously, at present, relgiosity does not predict comfort with bad things being followed by good things (as in, we must trust in God/the Creator, and that will have a positive effect on our governance.) We notice the same strange panicky paranoia among the religious as well as the irreligious.
But your point (2) points to a beneficial trait we should get our heads around: Whoever wins whichever election, whoever is right or wrong on whichever issue, how much better does our governance get if we simply say:
"We are Americans -- we will get through it, and if history is any guide, we will get through it better than we were"?
(3) above use to be seen as the reason people are moral (i.e., you'll get spanked after you die.) It is also a powerful inducement to obey a person who you think can get you good results after this life. But on the positive side, again, in our age of uncivil discourse and hysteria, perhaps a bit of that opiate is just what the doctor ordered, and perhaps Adams is prescient on this point.
Your Adams point (4), above, is one very strange thing about our present conversation:
The more religious one is, the more one has learned about the importance of sharing wealth. The writers of Adams' era and before were unapologetic -- nay, they saw it as a necessity in a civil society -- about helping the poor.
Since that time we have developed an ultra-distilled vision of individuals actually being morally flawed if they advocate for their state's involvement in alleviating the worst results of poverty.
I'm noting a historical change in attitudes here, rather than saying it's wrong to say the highest morality is "every man for himself." Of course, that attitude is wrong from my point of view; it's curious, however, how far we've come in this regard.
I need to get some sleep but I'm enjoying you guys that took the question seriously... I'm only up to B5's first (shorter) post. My own damn fault for asking y'all to think stuff through.
"It's past midnight, are you coming to bed?"
"Uhh.. uhh.. just after I write this 15,750 word essay on patsfans, darling"
Mark Twain was a racist.
That's an interesting observation, B5. I'm sure it requires more thinking on my part but I'm gonna try to address it without giving it the added attention for right now.
It seems to me that it's the "right" that's most trying to open that door, isn't it? I presume, (although I shouldn't) that you are thinking along the lines of
"as long as we keep handing out welfare checks and Medicaid cards and food stamps people will not take the responsibility of caring for themselves seriously." Now I could be wrong here because I am basing that on previous things I've read that you've written and I could be remembering wrongly.
Be that as it may - it is the people who are arguing for smaller government and less social aid programs that are attempting, through the courts and through the media, to do exactly what you say here - telling them how to live their lives.
Arizona is limiting what Medicaid will and will not pay for. ("Need a transplant? Too bad.") Florida (and, I believe, a few other states) wants to drug test anyone on unemployment or welfare. Numerous politicians, too many to count, want to make it impossible to buy soda pop or junk food with food stamps. In an attempt to remove affordable health care from poor women (and men and children) the "right" is busy trying to pass government regulations about the number of parking spaces Planned Parenthood clinics must have even though no other physician's office or clinic which does similar outpatient procedures will be required to comply.
Personally, and I speak from experience, I consider it humiliating enough to stand in an unemployment line, to pull out food stamps to pay for my children's milk and bread, to have to wait 6 months to see a doctor because I have to go to a clinic instead of calling a private physician and getting my medical problems taken care of within a few days.
Most of the people who are forced to do such things don't need the added humiliation of being drug tested (something like less than 2% of unemployed/welfare recipients tested positive in a test area.) Sometimes you just want a bottle of Pepsi. Is it worthwhile, is it even cost effective, to insist that all recipients of a social welfare progam be put through even more degradation in order to find the 2% of them that may be using illegal drugs? (And let's not forget that there are many people who take legitimate, prescribed drugs who will test positive, too. What happens to them?)
I just find it confusing that many of the same people who cry out for "smaller government" and "less government interference" are the ones who most often tout new laws and regulations which most severely limit the choices of the neediest amongst us.
Taking care of the neediest among us (slobbering)
My family was on welfare in the mid 1930's my mother first had to walk four blocks to Cambridge City Hall once there she had to stand in line then when her turn came she was handed a $5 dollar check and a book of "welfare stamps" she then had to walk to a bank and cash the check.
The next day she would give me some of the stamps, I would go down to "my corner" and get four or five other kids in my gang to go with me, we would then walk 6 or 7 blocks to what they then called "The Welfare Commissary" I would turn in my stamps for some Welfare peanut butter, prunes, evaporated milk, cheese and a loaf of stale bread.
The reason I took my gang with me was that no kid in his right mind would pick up his "welfare sh!t" as we called it alone there were always other kids waiting to beat the sh!t out of "a loner" and steal his Prunes, those were my welfare days.
Today, how long will it be before the slobbering liberals demand that we give illegal aliens and career welfarer's FREE MOTOR HOMES AND SAILBOATS.
I believe in feeding and putting a roof over the heads of the needy but where do you draw the line
(what the f-ck is a EBT card)
"it's a whole new world harry"
An EBT card is an aspect of this paternalistic society, instead of giving money for food they limit what you can buy, so Big Agra benefits most. The same way that Section 8 benefits landlords more than tenants, as the rent is guaranteed.
Food Stamps are operated by the Department of Agriculture, and administered by the welfare system..
EBT cards are also used for unemployment.. so if you see someone using an EBT card do not know if it is part of TANF(Welfare) or part of Unemployment Insurance.
Interestingly they are finding in Florida is costs more to test, than the anticipated results.. there is a move afoot in that legislature to mandate testing of the legislators to insure those who want to force others to have urine tests, to pass the test themselves..
For someone who experienced the humiliation of "welfare", if that story is really true, then might expect you to be more sympathetic towards the poor of society.
apparently where your family needed help, and nowhere beyond...
The story is true and I would gladly do anything I could to help "the truly poor" but as each day passes the the free loaders are making things worse and worse for the "honest poor".
I will also say this "f-ck the illegal aliens" make supporting them voluntary, let the bleeding hearts take care of Uncle Omar & Aunt Zucchini but don't take any of my taxes to do it, Pant Suit Hillary and the rest of those grinning democrats want to support them for their VOTES.
You know illegal aliens are not supposed to get any welfare benefits, Clinton and the welfare reform act of 1996 stopped this..
This was missed as many were more concerned with Monica then some real welfare reform..
If you want to live off the hard work of others, or expect to be taken care of off of someone else's dime, then you are beholden to the rules and regulation those providers give you. If you don't want to be told what you can buy with an EBT card, then go get a job and pay for it yourself. If you don't want to be regulated differently than some other clinics, or entities are, then get off the taxpayer dole. As someone who manages private market based rental units, as well as subsidized residential units via local, state, and federally funded avenues, I can tell you that the rules and regs of all or each, are entirely different. Privately owned market based units allow for the most control, whereas the subsidized units have the most rules and regs. Don't want all those regs, don't accept subsidized coin. That same principle applies elsewhere. If taxpayers provide you with an EBT card to buy food, you (people in general, not you specifically) shouldn't get upset if it means no shrimp and lobster, or no Doritos and soda. I can't fathom how someone can't see the difference between individual liberty for independent people, versus restrictions placed on those dependent upon others. You seem to feel that the working, self sustaining among us, should pay for those with a hand out, and shut up about it. That's absurd to me.
You're speaking in technicalities and hoping no one notices and no one sees the big picture. Fact is that illegals get PLENTY of benefits from free health care to housing to in state tuition.
If you're from New Hampshire you can't go to UMass without paying full tuition. But if you're from Mexico and your very presence in this state is a criminal act, then step right up and let the taxpayers cover your tuition for you.
I love the irony that the woman who doesn't want to allow you to put salt on your food thinks you have no right to tell people on the public dole how they can spend money that was given to them by taxpayers.
Separate names with a comma.