Prev: Somewhat OT: What can break on a cell phone?
Next: Strange idea..
From: dagmargoodboat on 13 Jul 2010 00:40
On Jul 12, 3:00 pm, "Joel Koltner" wrote:
> <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> > have taken from someone. So let's clarify that to say
>
> > "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>
> > is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
> > to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>
> Yes, agreed -- any "government assistance" is really just legally-compelled
> assistance from one's fellow citizens (and sometimes non-citizens -- some of
> those illegal immigrants are paying taxes too :-) ). People of all political
> persuasions naturally tend to start "spinning" and "sugar coating" the
> particular terms used -- or similarly venturing into using perjorative times
> to describe things they don't like.
>
> > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?
>
> Not at all; it's a very difficult balancing act, determining when providing
> someone with additional welfare will tend to make them less likely rather than
> more likely to become a productive citizen in the long-term. One person might
> reasonably view a soup kitchen/homeless shelter as an "incentive to poverty"
> whereas another can reasonably view it as a means by which an individual can
> save up enough money (not having to purchase food or shelter) to put
> themselves through school and get a good-paying, productive job.


> I know some
> people think liberals want a large welfare class since it does effectively
> give the government more power, but personally I think that's a pretty cynical
> view and that very, very liberals truly desire it.

("Very very few..." is what you meant, one assumes?)

And yet that is exactly my criticism of those policies. It's a left-
brain / right-brain thing. Everyone wants to help the guy in need,
it's a question of what really works, what really helps them. Mostly,
giving them things doesn't. In fact, it usually causes them positive
harm.

Having lived through two generations of such supposedly liberal
policies ("Johnson's War on Poverty), they've only made worse
everything they were meant to cure, at a cost greater than our entire
national debt.[1]

And we can't afford it. As Eskine Bowles (Clinton's Chief-of-Staff,
current co-chair of the President's Commission on Debt and Deficits)
put it today, the country is going "broke," at a frightening pace.
"It will definitely destroy this country, from within."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/12/obama_debt_commission_leader_warns_of_fiscal_cancer.html

That's not a joke, it's not hyperbole, it's real.

We've had this worry before and addressed it partly, but never, NEVER,
with anything close to this crazy level of spending, or starting with
anything close to this level of debt. Mr. Obama's spending is simply
ruinous. It's beyond insane.

And, Mr. Obama's spending is principally on welfare and social
programs, the ones that have failed our citizens so spectacularly.[2]
This is not a failure of capitalism, or free markets, it's a failure
of government, gone way past beyond its boundaries. Yet Mr. Obama's
taking the worst programs and failed policies of the past 50 years,
and putting them on steroids.

It's truly awful. I can't think of a society whose economic collapse
ever ended well.


[1] Total spending on the "war on poverty" since Johnson has exceeded
$16 trillion dollars. The entire national debt is about $13 or 14T.
Well, yesterday it was. Now it's more.

[2] e.g. skim the text and just peek at the graphs here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/confronting%20the%20unsustainable%20growth%20of%20welfare%20entitlements%20principles%20of%20reform%20and%20the%20next%20steps


James Arthur
From: Bill Bowden on 13 Jul 2010 00:54
On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:67345a88-08bd-44d5-978b-e22e3031c1ee(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
>
> > >From the comments:
> > >  "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>
> > :-)
>
> > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a little
> > disingenuous?  If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any* phone, it's
> > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway (looks more
> > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days are usually
> > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what service
> > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>
> Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
> buttons?
>
> > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a cell phone
> > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further towards
> > helping him get a job than the later.
>
> > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it should require
> > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for *some*
> > government assistance.
>
> I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
> I know have them.  It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
> better phones than I do.  This guy did.
>
> I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>
> Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> have taken from someone.  So let's clarify that to say
>

Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.

-Bill

>    "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>
> is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
> to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>
> Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> poverty on the other.  Is that always a good thing?
>
> --
> Cheers,JamesArthur

From: keithw86 on 13 Jul 2010 09:06
On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:67345a88-08bd-44d5-978b-e22e3031c1ee(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > >From the comments:
> > > >  "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>
> > > :-)
>
> > > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a little
> > > disingenuous?  If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any* phone, it's
> > > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway (looks more
> > > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days are usually
> > > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what service
> > > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>
> > Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
> > buttons?
>
> > > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a cell phone
> > > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further towards
> > > helping him get a job than the later.
>
> > > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it should require
> > > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for *some*
> > > government assistance.
>
> > I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
> > I know have them.  It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
> > better phones than I do.  This guy did.
>
> > I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>
> > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> > have taken from someone.  So let's clarify that to say
>
> Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
> taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
> pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
> money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
> to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>
> -Bill
>
> >    "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>
> > is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
> > to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>
> > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> > poverty on the other.  Is that always a good thing?

Strawman.

From: tm on 13 Jul 2010 09:15

<keithw86(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2af408a0-7c70-4ca5-bd74-495340408c0d(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:67345a88-08bd-44d5-978b-e22e3031c1ee(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >From the comments:
> > > > "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>
> > > :-)
>
> > > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a
> > > little
> > > disingenuous? If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any*
> > > phone, it's
> > > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway
> > > (looks more
> > > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days are
> > > usually
> > > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what
> > > service
> > > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>
> > Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
> > buttons?
>
> > > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a cell
> > > phone
> > > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further
> > > towards
> > > helping him get a job than the later.
>
> > > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it should
> > > require
> > > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for *some*
> > > government assistance.
>
> > I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
> > I know have them. It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
> > better phones than I do. This guy did.
>
> > I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>
> > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> > have taken from someone. So let's clarify that to say
>
> Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
> taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
> pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
> money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
> to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>
> -Bill
>
> > "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>
> > is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
> > to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>
> > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?

..Strawman.


More like the heart of the issue.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: keithw86 on 13 Jul 2010 09:19
On Jul 13, 8:15 am, "tm" <no...(a)msc.com> wrote:
> <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2af408a0-7c70-4ca5-bd74-495340408c0d(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 12, 11:54 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 9:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:67345a88-08bd-44d5-978b-e22e3031c1ee(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >From the comments:
> > > > > "Show me on the doll where Uncle Sam touched you."
>
> > > > :-)
>
> > > > Don't you think the captioned photo a few posts above that one is a
> > > > little
> > > > disingenuous? If the guy is homeless, presumably if he has *any*
> > > > phone, it's
> > > > going to be a cell phone, I don't think it's a Blackberry anyway
> > > > (looks more
> > > > like a Palm Treo) -- and even if it were, Blackberries these days are
> > > > usually
> > > > <$100 anyway with a contract, and how in the world do they know what
> > > > service
> > > > plan he has? -- It could easily be a $10/mo plan.
>
> > > Aren't Crackberries fitted with full keyboards, bristling with
> > > buttons?
>
> > > > Heck, I'm happy he's spending whatever income he does have a on a cell
> > > > phone
> > > > rather than, e.g., cable TV -- at least the phone goes a lot further
> > > > towards
> > > > helping him get a job than the later.
>
> > > > I guess the basic "disconnect" I have is that I don't think it should
> > > > require
> > > > having absolutely *zero* disposable income to still qualify for *some*
> > > > government assistance.
>
> > > I don't mind a homeless guy having a cell phone--all the homeless guys
> > > I know have them. It is sort of telling, though, if they've got
> > > better phones than I do. This guy did.
>
> > > I think that's what bugged people about that photo.
>
> > > Oh, and a minor point--government has no money but that which they
> > > have taken from someone. So let's clarify that to say
>
> > Yes, you are right, government has no money, except what it gets in
> > taxes, but don't you agree spending taxpayers money for say the FDA
> > pays off to insure food products are eatable? Some of the peoples tax
> > money is spent for worthwhile causes, wouldn't you agree? I don't want
> > to eat toadstools that are advertised as mushrooms.
>
> > -Bill
>
> > > "[income level] to qualify for *some* government assistance"
>
> > > is to speak about setting an income threshold below which someone has
> > > to drop, and thereupon compelling citizens to support him.
>
> > > Could be true--the spirit of it--but let's not lose sight of what
> > > we're talking about: force, on the one hand, and an incentive to
> > > poverty on the other. Is that always a good thing?
>
> .Strawman.
>
> More like the heart of the issue.

Wrong. Different issue == strawman.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Somewhat OT: What can break on a cell phone?
Next: Strange idea..