My World Turned Upside Down

[quietmike]

Nothing shows your love for the poor like being willing to spend someone else's money to support them.

[soapman1029]

Okay, so let's see if you can come out of hiding and let us know what kind of "help" you and the various other bleeding-heart conservatives have got in mind, since evidently you're totally down with reducing or eliminating both tax breaks and government benefits to the poor. Maybe something heart-melting along the lines of, "Sorry we're denying you food stamps and Medicaid and housing assistance, but really, this hurts us more than it hurts you!"

Let's say we go with your plan. Exactly how long do you want to let an individual claim benefits? A year, 2 years, for life? They have to have an incentive to get off of the dole but when they make this kind of money http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html why would they?

[jdm61]

No, you call them selfish for wanting to keep what they are keeping right now, not "more"

Don't forget the part where you call the people footing the bills "selfish" for wanting to keep more of their own money.

[Triton]

Nothing shows your love for the poor like being willing to spend someone else's money to support them.

Bingo. Nothing is preventing liberals from spending as much of their own money as they want except for... well... liberals.

[jdm61]

Well, if you can tell me that the current food stamps sysem does not penailize you for being white, then maybe we have seen some kind of improvement in the last 10 years or so.

Okay, so let's see if you can come out of hiding and let us know what kind of "help" you and the various other bleeding-heart conservatives have got in mind, since evidently you're totally down with reducing or eliminating both tax breaks and government benefits to the poor. Maybe something heart-melting along the lines of, "Sorry we're denying you food stamps and Medicaid and housing assistance, but really, this hurts us more than it hurts you!"

[Triton]

Let's say we go with your plan. Exactly how long do you want to let an individual claim benefits? A year, 2 years, for life? They have to have an incentive to get off of the dole but when they make this kind of money http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html why would they?

It's another problem with liberals they think that they only way that someone can be "helped" is by making them permanently dependent upon government. The concept of improving the economy to the point that people don't need government "assistance" doesn't occur to them... or maybe it does...

[Preacher Man]

It's another problem with liberals they think that they only way that someone can be "helped" is by making them permanently dependent upon government. The concept of improving the economy to the point that people don't need government "assistance" doesn't occur to them... or maybe it does...

I don't think that is accurate. Between 1940 and 1970 we had great economic development and growth. The economic policies used and encouraged by democrats during that time to great success, Keynesian Economics, would be considered by those who favor Supply-side Economics as liberal-leaning, even though that is not true. Supply-side Economics would argue that Keynesian Economics can't and will not work (even though they did work to great success) and that these economic policies help to make sectors of society dependent of the government, even though what they do is to encourage job creation. The greatest economic growth we experienced as a country in the 20th century took place when Keynesian Economics was the dominant economic paradigm. My point is that different circumstances require different economic tools, and the one size fits all approach of Supply-side economics doesn't always cut it. Saying the liberals don't want to help the economy is not a statement based on history or fact. There are certainly some in the liberal side who favor a more socialist model, which I agree can result in encouraging dependence. Not every liberal supports socialism. The fact that the welfare system has become politicized doesn't mean that the only way liberals think they can help those down and out is by government dependence. If no liberal program was designed to encourage job creation, I would agree with you. As it stand, I can't, at least not entirely.

[OliverH]

Well, if you can tell me that the current food stamps sysem does not penailize you for being white, then maybe we have seen some kind of improvement in the last 10 years or so.

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how a one-sentence expression of racial resentment provides an answer to my question about what different idea of "help" you and like-minded folks have in mind for the poor. Maybe part of the plan is to reduce the heating bills for poor black people by burning crosses in their yards?

[OliverH]

Let's say we go with your plan. Exactly how long do you want to let an individual claim benefits? A year, 2 years, for life? They have to have an incentive to get off of the dole but when they make this kind of money http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html why would they?

Point of order. I haven't offered a plan. I've just pointed out that every proposal coming out of the conservative side around here isn't a plan to "reform" benefits or make people less dependent or anything else. They're all plans to satisfy the speaker's resentment toward the poor, and toward having to pay to help out people who aren't doing well. As a rather natural result, each proposal ends up with poor people getting less help and/or paying more taxes, and/or just having a harder time generally, presumably as a "character-building" measure that is supposed to straighten them out.

However, you did offer several specifics in the name of "common sense." Let's return to your notion of drug-testing people on benefits, and the questions I had about it that you never answered. Okay, so let's say we regularly test anybody who gets government benefits (maybe even including Social Security!) for drugs on a regular basis. How much do you suppose that would cost? And let's say that somebody tests positive. Then what? Is your plan simply to cut them off, or do you send them off for residential rehab to get them cleaned up? If you decide to cut them off, then let's consider some of the fallout from that. Presumably this means that a single welfare mother with kids would lose benefits for the whole family if it turned out marijuana was detected in her system. Is that okay? Or in order to protect the innocent, would you take the kids away from the mother and give them to somebody more responsible? Or, let's say that somebody tests positive for drugs who really does have a substance abuse problem. If suddenly an addict, probably somebody with no skills and little useful work experience, now finds themselves with no resources or place to live, what does your common sense tell you is going to happen next? Mine tells me that it's not going to work out very well either for the addict or for society as a whole. On the other hand, you might be thinking of the more benevolent second option, whereby people who test positive for drugs are given counseling and followup examinations, and if they turn out to have a substance abuse problem, then we send them off for rehabilitation at government expense. If you're going for that choice, doesn't it get a little pricey?

[soapman1029]

Point of order. I haven't offered a plan. I've just pointed out that every proposal coming out of the conservative side around here isn't a plan to "reform" benefits or make people less dependent or anything else. They're all plans to satisfy the speaker's resentment toward the poor, and toward having to pay to help out people who aren't doing well. As a rather natural result, each proposal ends up with poor people getting less help and/or paying more taxes, and/or just having a harder time generally, presumably as a "character-building" measure that is supposed to straighten them out.

However, you did offer several specifics in the name of "common sense." Let's return to your notion of drug-testing people on benefits, and the questions I had about it that you never answered. Okay, so let's say we regularly test anybody who gets government benefits (maybe even including Social Security!) for drugs on a regular basis. How much do you suppose that would cost? And let's say that somebody tests positive. Then what? Is your plan simply to cut them off, or do you send them off for residential rehab to get them cleaned up? If you decide to cut them off, then let's consider some of the fallout from that. Presumably this means that a single welfare mother with kids would lose benefits for the whole family if it turned out marijuana was detected in her system. Is that okay? Or in order to protect the innocent, would you take the kids away from the mother and give them to somebody more responsible? Or, let's say that somebody tests positive for drugs who really does have a substance abuse problem. If suddenly an addict, probably somebody with no skills and little useful work experience, now finds themselves with no resources or place to live, what does your common sense tell you is going to happen next? Mine tells me that it's not going to work out very well either for the addict or for society as a whole. On the other hand, you might be thinking of the more benevolent second option, whereby people who test positive for drugs are given counseling and followup examinations, and if they turn out to have a substance abuse problem, then we send them off for rehabilitation at government expense. If you're going for that choice, doesn't it get a little pricey?

Trust me I do not resent poor people I come from a long line of poor people who got up every morning and went to work.
On the drug testing you are correct, we can't afford to test everyone. How about a 3 strike rule? If you are arrested for selling or using 3 times you are cut off completely for 3 months. You can then be tested, if you pass, benefits are reinstated. I'm sorry to say that includes the single mother with kids. Just because someone is addicted to drugs does not mean that it is the governments responsibility to take care of them. At some point a person HAS to take responsibility for their own actions.
Like I said in an earlier post we cannot support all the other countries that we do and our own country at the same time, the math simply does not work out. If we stopped supporting all of these countries we could easily afford to do everything that you would like to help the poor in our own country. What I'm trying to say is, that someone somewhere at sometime will have to do without unless we want to be the next third world country.
It's easy to see that you are an individual who wants to help people and you are obviously very intelligent but you have to know that with this country's debt and expanding welfare benefits there is only one possible outcome and it is not a good one.

[Triton]

I don't think that is accurate. Between 1940 and 1970 we had great economic development and growth.

What happened in 1970?

The greatest economic growth we experienced as a country in the 20th century took place when Keynesian Economics was the dominant economic paradigm.

How is the ultimate keynesian the obama working out for us?

Saying the liberals don't want to help the economy is not a statement based on history or fact. There are certainly some in the liberal side who favor a more socialist model, which I agree can result in encouraging dependence. Not every liberal supports socialism. The fact that the welfare system has become politicized doesn't mean that the only way liberals think they can help those down and out is by government dependence.

It would appear that all the elected liberals do, and the ones electing them keep voting for them. However, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find an elected liberal that doesn't advocate a big government solution for pretty much everything. I mean there's... um... hmmm....

[jdm61]

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how a one-sentence expression of racial resentment provides an answer to my question about what different idea of "help" you and like-minded folks have in mind for the poor. Maybe part of the plan is to reduce the heating bills for poor black people by burning crosses in their yards?

Yeah, I hatez me some dark folks. Where's my noose? LOL. Actually, that statement was based on the experience of an old friend of mine who found herself with two young kids, lots of bills, a piddly paying job and an ex who refused to pay child support. She was told officially that because she had a house to live in (rented) and a car to drive (small Toyota) that she was too "rich" to get food stamps in Tampa. She was then told "soto voce" that she was too caucasian. This was around 1998. My point being that these programs were not being used to protect the "poor" back then, but as a sop to certain political factions.

[Preacher Man]

What happened in 1970?

IMHO, in 1970 welfare started to become politicized with the result that Keynesian policies of job creation tarted to take a second seat to political expedience. Basically, the radical left that took center stage in popular culture during the 60's resulted in policy changes that started to have negative political and economic results in the 70's. As a result, the economic growth seen in the previous 40 years started to decline. IMHO, it was the cultural changes during the 60's and their resulting political and economic changes during the 70's what lead to the "Conservative Resurgence".

How is the ultimate keynesian the obama working out for us?

I don't think Obama's economic policies represent Keynesian economic positions. What of his policies make you think he is trying to apply Keynesian Economic theory?

It would appear that all the elected liberals do, and the ones electing them keep voting for them. However, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find an elected liberal that doesn't advocate a big government solution for pretty much everything. I mean there's... um... hmmm....

To be honest, I'm not very observant of the left as I'm not a liberal but don't take the position that liberals are the enemy (except maybe on some moral issues, and then only with extreme liberals). I accept that we are a Nation based on diversity and that diversity of cultures, positions, and ideas is what has made us strong and stable. I have heard elected democrat officials defend policies that are anything but socialist, so I can't agree with the blanket generalization that wanting a bigger government can be equated with socialism. As a matter of fact, a larger government can't be automatically equated with socialism. Socialism is not about the size of government but about government ownership of the means of production.

[Preacher Man]

Well, if you can tell me that the current food stamps sysem does not penailize you for being white, then maybe we have seen some kind of improvement in the last 10 years or so.

Can you please explain what you mean with "penalize you for being white"?

Never mind. You already answered my question.

[Preacher Man]

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how a one-sentence expression of racial resentment provides an answer to my question about what different idea of "help" you and like-minded folks have in mind for the poor. Maybe part of the plan is to reduce the heating bills for poor black people by burning crosses in their yards?

What on jmd's posts make you think he supports KKK ideas and morality?

[quietmike]

IMHO, in 1970 welfare started to become politicized with the result that Keynesian policies of job creation tarted to take a second seat to political expedience. Basically, the radical left that took center stage in popular culture during the 60's resulted in policy changes that started to have negative political and economic results in the 70's. As a result, the economic growth seen in the previous 40 years started to decline. IMHO, it was the cultural changes during the 60's and their resulting political and economic changes during the 70's what lead to the "Conservative Resurgence".

Agreed.

I don't think Obama's economic policies represent Keynesian economic positions. What of his policies make you think he is trying to apply Keynesian Economic theory?

Spending our way out of debt is a Keynesian theory that Obama has followed to a "t". Though I would argue that his economic theory is more aligned with socialism, since he wants to dictate a ceiling for salaries of CEOs among other things.

To be honest, I'm not very observant of the left as I'm not a liberal but don't take the position that liberals are the enemy (except maybe on some moral issues, and then only with extreme liberals). I accept that we are a Nation based on diversity and that diversity of cultures, positions, and ideas is what has made us strong and stable. I have heard elected democrat officials defend policies that are anything but socialist, so I can't agree with the blanket generalization that wanting a bigger government can be equated with socialism. As a matter of fact, a larger government can't be automatically equated with socialism. Socialism is not about the size of government but about government ownership of the means of production.

It may be true that some liberals support positions that aren't socialist, but it would be had to argue that democrats as a whole don't support ideals more aligned with socialism than free market capitalism.

[Preacher Man]

Spending our way out of debt is a Keynesian theory that Obama has followed to a "t". Though I would argue that his economic theory is more aligned with socialism, since he wants to dictate a ceiling for salaries of CEOs among other things.

I'm not really sure his positions are socialist. Calling for a ceiling on salaries for CEO's of companies that received bailout money is not the same as advocating governmental ownership of the means of production. If they accepted the financial help, that help comes with strings attached.

The use of government spending as a way to help/encourage consumer spending is a Keynesian position, but this goes along with spending in areas that result in job creation. A welfare system or a social net are not incompatible with Keynesian theory, but do not define the kind of spending proposed by Keynes.

It may be true that some liberals support positions that aren't socialist, but it would be had to argue that democrats as a whole don't support ideals more aligned with socialism than free market capitalism.

Isn't the assumption here that there are no middle positions between socialism and free-market capitalisms (laissez faire capitalism)? That is simply not accurate.

[quietmike]

I'm not really sure his positions are socialist. Calling for a ceiling on salaries for CEO's of companies that received bailout money is not the same as advocating governmental ownership of the means of production. If they accepted the financial help, that help comes with strings attached.

But when government forces some to take the help?
http://articles.boston.com/2009-05-1...on-sheila-bair

The use of government spending as a way to help/encourage consumer spending is a Keynesian position, but this goes along with spending in areas that result in job creation. A welfare system or a social net are not incompatible with Keynesian theory, but do not define the kind of spending proposed by Keynes.

Do you think Obama's spending is more in line with the Austrian theory?

Isn't the assumption here that there are no middle positions between socialism and free-market capitalisms (laissez faire capitalism)? That is simply not accurate.

If we accept that free market capitalism requires government intervention in cases of fraud or injury to separate it from anarchy, then I don't see a middle ground. I see socialism as the middle ground between free markets and communism.

[Preacher Man]

But when government forces some to take the help?
http://articles.boston.com/2009-05-1...on-sheila-bair

Even if some institutions were threatened into participating in the bailouts, and that is not what the article says, the institutions had the option to return the money as quickly as possible. These institutions that spend billions in lobbyist and manage to get laws repealed at their convenience (à la Glass-Steagal) can't manage to return the bailouts as quickly as possible to avoid the strings attached? If they did not really need the money, they did not have to use it and could return it quickly. If they decided to benefit from that money since they already got it, then they accepted the attached strings.

Do you think Obama's spending is more in line with the Austrian theory?

Of course not, but the Austrian school and Keynesian economic theory are not the only economic theory options.

If we accept that free market capitalism requires government intervention in cases of fraud or injury to separate it from anarchy, then I don't see a middle ground. I see socialism as the middle ground between free markets and communism.

And that is the problem. Who said that the government taking regulatory steps to avoid repeated incidences of financial abuse, to protect the economy from the unscrupulous is synonymous with socialism? My point is that there are more than two options here. This is not an all or nothing problem. Your description is based on taking the assumptions of Laissez fair capitalism and turning them into the description of what makes a position qualify as not been socialist. In other words, and I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are trying to say that what allows any economic position to be classified as socialist is taking a stand that is contrary to laissez fair capitalism. Laissez fair capitalism is not the only form of capitalism and is not the only economic theory available that is actually not socialist nor communist. Disagreeing with the assumptions and practices of Laissez faire capitalism doesn't make someone into a socialist.

[Triton]

IMHO, in 1970 welfare started to become politicized with the result that Keynesian policies of job creation tarted to take a second seat to political expedience.

Is that less true now or more true now?

Basically, the radical left that took center stage in popular culture during the 60's resulted in policy changes that started to have negative political and economic results in the 70's.

Is that less true now or more true now?

I don't think Obama's economic policies represent Keynesian economic positions. What of his policies make you think he is trying to apply Keynesian Economic theory?

The way I understand it the major component of keynesian economic theory is government spending especially on infrastructure, with that understanding the rest should be obvious. The obama does nothing but talk about more government spending particularly on "roads and bridges."

I have heard elected democrat officials defend policies that are anything but socialist,

Who?

so I can't agree with the blanket generalization that wanting a bigger government can be equated with socialism. As a matter of fact, a larger government can't be automatically equated with socialism. Socialism is not about the size of government but about government ownership of the means of production.

Okay that's a good point, some liberals don't want socialism, they merely want a bigger government and a more command style economy. That's not any better of course.