Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[AAFitz]

Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Glad you clarified your position, else I was going to ask whether you were of the mindset that the government should be privatized, as a typical Randroid would advocate (or anybody who feels that the 19th century was some sort of golden age, like pretty much all the "conservatives" who work in the media).

I do, however, think the current method of providing safety nets needs to be critically reviewed and reorganized.

Follow up question for Jenos Ridan II: Do you think the improved state of people in "developed" countries is a result of government intervention (or mostly government intervention)?

Question jack! The ridiculously high standard of living the wealthy in post-industrial societies enjoy is certainly a result of government intervention, in that the government intervened in poorer societies to take their resources from them, usually with the help of bombs and/or swords, but sometimes loans.

So you're saying government intervention didn't raise the quality of life of the poor, but the quality of life of the rich? Yeah, that's probably true, although I would argue that government has raised the quality of life of the rich for the past 2,000 years.

And youd be right, and would argue it shows we are slow learners. I would also suggest that the 2000 years could probably be changed to the beginning of civilization and government.

I suppose the dark ages however, would be questionable though...if the religious governments of the time, did not suppress science, it is very possible indeed, that much medical and other innovation would have improved the lives of all people rich and poor much sooner than it ultimately did.

[Lootifer]

Medicare, Income sec, health, education and social security is still less than NZ's health, education and welfare spend (24.8% of GDP vs 27.2% of GDP). And we do alright.

What is Greece's? Are they doing alright?

Taking my victory and going home.

[BigBallinStalin]

Every "modern" economy requires large amounts of government intervention. Regulations regarding transport and communications, spending on infrastructure (the US of today wouldn't have been possible had we left the contruction of the railroads solely in the hands of private interests), courts to enforce contracts and arbitrate commercial disputes, laws protecting intellectual property, etc. In fact, without government, I rather doubt the economy would have developed much beyond the level of barter and subsistence agriculture.

Those goods total roughly less than 5% of the federal budget to US GDP.

So what about the other 95%?

[rockfist]

Personally I think the woman is largely irrelevant to the wider issues. Sure she should be condemned, but she is not a valid rationale for scrapping welfare systems world wide.

I'd personally rather have people fend for themselves than see any of our money taken by force to be given to people like the woman in this story.

I had an aunt (through marriage) that was on public assistance after she bankrupted my uncle...and I was appalled with the way she spent her money. I'd have cut them off from all monetary assistance. I'd have made sure my cousins had cloths/food, but paper money was of more use being burned to heat your home than being given to her.

[Aradhus]

10 pages about one crazy lady on welfare.

0 pages about incredibly corrupt banks and mortgage companies fleecing the nation and then their executives not having to pay any fucking income tax. No no, we need to protect those people!

Yes Dave, but this crazy lady demanded more help and appeared unappreciative of the help she had already recieved. Apparently that's just about a hanging offense around these parts. I've heard that when banks demand help they're incredibly humble about it.

The reason is the right wing conservatives are inherrently adverse to critical self-analysis, and prone to critical [outward/external-] analysis. Where as us liberal lefties the opposite is true.

Thus the C.R. spend all their time crapping on about us, and, well, so do the L.L.

You can try minding your own business, since you don't have a clue about America.

[rockfist]

What I am saying is if the system can't be fixed...kill it.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Lootifer and Phatscotty


Lootifer, you make good points which Phatscotty overlooks, but in the long-run, "redistributive" spending (e.g. social security, medicare, medicaid) will grow an additional 10% to US GDP in about 20-30 years--assuming the government doesn't reduce the benefits from such programs. That jumps "redistributive" spending up to roughly 30%, but that's not the main problem. Additionally, the US has over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations... Comparing the budgets of NZ and US governments was useful for dealing with Phatsco's meh argument, but here's the unique problem with the US:


The main problem is that the US continues to incur budget deficits (about $350bn per year since the 19990s) while accruing more national debt which is beyond the realistic means of the US to pay off ($14.7 trillion so far; over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations). Furthermore, increased government spending only brings marginal returns (e.g. prolonging a recession via inflation which imposes a greater long-term cost on Americans). The US can't tax their way out of this, and it's politically suicidal, or leads to a stalemate, for the politicians to meaningfully reduce government spending.

The US has been able to do this because the US dollar enjoys its world reserve currency status. Eventually, foreign lenders will get wise to the inevitable insolvency of the US government. When they do, they'll dump all US dollar-denominated investments in exchange for commodities or non-US securities, which will eventually send all those dollars back to the US. Either it will be high inflation or hyperinflation after perceived values readjust to the real value. The US faces a scenario which has locked the government and the people into a lovely economic collapse which will be far worse than the 2007 housing crisis.






BTW, what's NZ's immigration policy?

[Lootifer]

@Lootifer and Phatscotty

The main problem is that the US continues to incur budget deficits (about $350bn per year since the 19990s) while accruing more national debt which is beyond the realistic means of the US to pay off ($14.7 trillion so far; over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations). Furthermore, increased government spending only brings marginal returns (e.g. prolonging a recession via inflation which imposes a greater long-term cost on Americans). The US can't tax their way out of this, and it's politically suicidal, or leads to a stalemate, for the politicians to meaningfully reduce government spending.

The US has been able to do this because the US dollar enjoys its world reserve currency status. Eventually, foreign lenders will get wise to the inevitable insolvency of the US government. When they do, they'll dump all US dollar-denominated investments in exchange for commodities or non-US securities, which will eventually send all those dollars back to the US. Either it will be high inflation or hyperinflation after perceived values readjust to the real value. The US faces a scenario which has locked the government and the people into a lovely economic collapse which will be far worse than the 2007 housing crisis.

BTW, what's NZ's immigration policy?

Jesus when you put it like that i'm thinking it's going to make 1929 look like a peachy holiday (well not really, it'll just mean we have to welcome our new chinese overlords... either way... eh oh spaghetti-o).

I think the real kicker which will piss you and I off the most will be the solutions (regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum, im sure there's solutions on both sides, though undoubtedly favouring the right... but i digress) will get skull-fucked and mutilated by political agendas and end up being retarded band-aid fixes that have the foresight of a half blind goldfish.

I believe this sums up what will happen nicely:

[Lootifer]

Oh and NZ operates on a points system based on value to the workforce, so you should be fine, AoG will need to be adopted to slip thru (by you perhaps?) and Scotty might be out of luck...

[Nobunaga]

@Lootifer and Phatscotty


Lootifer, you make good points which Phatscotty overlooks, but in the long-run, "redistributive" spending (e.g. social security, medicare, medicaid) will grow an additional 10% to US GDP in about 20-30 years--assuming the government doesn't reduce the benefits from such programs. That jumps "redistributive" spending up to roughly 30%, but that's not the main problem. Additionally, the US has over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations... Comparing the budgets of NZ and US governments was useful for dealing with Phatsco's meh argument, but here's the unique problem with the US:


The main problem is that the US continues to incur budget deficits (about $350bn per year since the 19990s) while accruing more national debt which is beyond the realistic means of the US to pay off ($14.7 trillion so far; over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations). Furthermore, increased government spending only brings marginal returns (e.g. prolonging a recession via inflation which imposes a greater long-term cost on Americans). The US can't tax their way out of this, and it's politically suicidal, or leads to a stalemate, for the politicians to meaningfully reduce government spending.

The US has been able to do this because the US dollar enjoys its world reserve currency status. Eventually, foreign lenders will get wise to the inevitable insolvency of the US government. When they do, they'll dump all US dollar-denominated investments in exchange for commodities or non-US securities, which will eventually send all those dollars back to the US. Either it will be high inflation or hyperinflation after perceived values readjust to the real value. The US faces a scenario which has locked the government and the people into a lovely economic collapse which will be far worse than the 2007 housing crisis.

... Now I am thoroughly depressed.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

That's the problem, Nobunaga. The inevitable truth is depressing. It's god-awful depressing. So... perhaps that's why no one wants to seriously talk about it. Perhaps that's why no one's really going to have the will power to address this issue effectively.


The best you can do is prepare ahead of time. Invest in silver and gold mining stock (preferably that which pays dividends), purchase rare commodities, invest in more stable government bonds (NZ, Australia, maybe Germany... maybe not). Maybe China but they'll most likely f*ck you in a heartbeat if things get domestically dicey there.

Social capital matters too--that's why I study Chinese and economics.

Good luck, everyone. Enjoy the party while it lasts!

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh and NZ operates on a points system based on value to the workforce, so you should be fine, AoG will need to be adopted to slip thru (by you perhaps?) and Scotty might be out of luck...

Judging from AoG's small stature, I could fit 2 AoGs in my duffel bag... the flight to NZ is over 24 hours.... I'm thinking of cutting some glory holes in the bag to pass the time and also net a profit.


What are NZ's laws on the ownership of small arms? I'm a good 'ol boy from the South, so no one's gonna strip me of my freedom.

[Nobunaga]

That's the problem, Nobunaga. The inevitable truth is depressing. It's god-awful depressing. So... perhaps that's why no one wants to seriously talk about it. Perhaps that's why no one's really going to have the will power to address this issue effectively.


The best you can do is prepare ahead of time. Invest in silver and gold mining stock (preferably that which pays dividends), purchase rare commodities, invest in more stable government bonds (NZ, Australia, maybe Germany... maybe not). Maybe China but they'll most likely f*ck you in a heartbeat if things get domestically dicey there.

Social capital matters too--that's why I study Chinese and economics.

Good luck, everyone. Enjoy the party while it lasts!

... My family's emergency plan (if/when it all falls apart) is making the move to China. I hate being in China, but who knows, they may clean the place up eventually.

...

[TheProwler]

The best you can do is prepare ahead of time. Invest in silver and gold mining stock (preferably that which pays dividends), purchase rare commodities, invest in more stable government bonds (NZ, Australia, maybe Germany... maybe not). Maybe China but they'll most likely f*ck you in a heartbeat if things get domestically dicey there.

How about buy some land, grow some food, raise some livestock, etc.?

Hunting is good too, but you need your veggies.

There's gonna be a lot of hungry people when companies can't afford the gasoline needed to transport your food.

[BigBallinStalin]

The best you can do is prepare ahead of time. Invest in silver and gold mining stock (preferably that which pays dividends), purchase rare commodities, invest in more stable government bonds (NZ, Australia, maybe Germany... maybe not). Maybe China but they'll most likely f*ck you in a heartbeat if things get domestically dicey there.

How about buy some land, grow some food, raise some livestock, etc.?

Hunting is good too, but you need your veggies.

There's gonna be a lot of hungry people when companies can't afford the gasoline needed to transport your food.

Sure, you could do that. Just remember that your cash money will be worth very little.

I like my plan more because the assets are much more liquid, I'll make better returns, and I get to kick it in New Zealand/Australia/China while people languish through a 10+ year depression the US.

Your plan works great if you already want to be a farmer while you work for the unknown amount of time for the big collapse. I don't, so

[patches70]

I figure I can just trade lead for anything I need. Dish out lead for gold, silver, food, shelter, women. Whatever I should happen to want or need. I gotz lotz of lead.

[thegreekdog]

So you're saying government intervention didn't raise the quality of life of the poor, but the quality of life of the rich? Yeah, that's probably true, although I would argue that government has raised the quality of life of the rich for the past 2,000 years.

And youd be right, and would argue it shows we are slow learners. I would also suggest that the 2000 years could probably be changed to the beginning of civilization and government.

I suppose the dark ages however, would be questionable though...if the religious governments of the time, did not suppress science, it is very possible indeed, that much medical and other innovation would have improved the lives of all people rich and poor much sooner than it ultimately did.

I do not agree that religious governments in, for example, the dark ages (which, at least in Europe, were not religious governments) repressed science. In fact, I think if you look at history, most (and likely all) scientific thinkers prior to the 18th century were religious men.

[Symmetry]

So you're saying government intervention didn't raise the quality of life of the poor, but the quality of life of the rich? Yeah, that's probably true, although I would argue that government has raised the quality of life of the rich for the past 2,000 years.

And youd be right, and would argue it shows we are slow learners. I would also suggest that the 2000 years could probably be changed to the beginning of civilization and government.

I suppose the dark ages however, would be questionable though...if the religious governments of the time, did not suppress science, it is very possible indeed, that much medical and other innovation would have improved the lives of all people rich and poor much sooner than it ultimately did.

I do not agree that religious governments in, for example, the dark ages (which, at least in Europe, were not religious governments) repressed science. In fact, I think if you look at history, most (and likely all) scientific thinkers prior to the 18th century were religious men.

True, and maybe worth pointing out that a modern conception of science didn't really form until the late 17th century anyway. So it's sort of difficult to argue that a, say, 13th century government was repressing science, cos then you've got to ask what science meant in the 13th century.

[PLAYER57832]

The government creates the strong incentive for very poor people to continuously procreate. Essentially, welfare services (like medicare and medicaid, and subsidies within the tax code) reward people who earn very little for producing more kids. People tend to be geared toward thinking in the short-term, so they'll discount the long-term costs of raising kids in exchange for the immediate tax credits and services received by the government.

NOPE!

The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

There's a difference between the government creating an incentive which shapes human behavior (my position) and the incentives which shape government/political behavior (your position).

Seeing that you failed to see this distinction by conflating the two different positions, and that you simply discarded my entire argument without really addressing it (via your patented Tangent to the Unknown), then I'd be glad to discuss your criticism if someone else takes up the torch and pitchfork. Or if you wanted to focus on one specific thing in the argument, then I'll talk with you about it.

Nice try at sidswiping the issue by, again pretending that you sit in some lofty hallowed position of understanding that the rest of us cannot possibly understand.

The government has no independent incentives. Leaders have incentives to keep their power. People have incentives to demand security and safety. In the past, the two worked in tandem (oppositional tandem, but it worked). However, just as monarchs in the past gained too much power and became abusive, the heavy capitalists of today are also deciding that its OK for them to have everything and give nothing to those below .. or only very little.

That we are not yet at the point of having droves starving, massive plagues, etc is a benefit of technology, but the disparity is still there, and still marked.

[PLAYER57832]

The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

Democracies and Republics, however, provide social services because people don't happen to like seeing their neighbors starve. Traditionally, this included basic medical care because people, above all else, understood that if your neighbor cannot get to the doctor when sick, it is likely they will pass their diseases onto you. We have lost sight of some of that because we have so many vaccines and over the counter preparations to combat symptoms. (many people don't even get that treating symptoms is not the same as treating diseases or that antibiotics don't help colds).

I would contend we're closer to the despots, dictators, etc. than the democracies and republics on that scale. The political class has realized that they can use the powers of the national government to redistribute the wealth in order to buy votes from the poor. And then they can keep them poor and demanding more because of the constant stream of money that they do not have to work for.

The trouble is its Walmart, etc that are the big winners today, not average people. Wages keep getting lowered, so people have little choice BUT to go buy from box stores and Walmart.

Folks around here celebrate the Marcellus Gas industry, because it is providing jobs. And because it is providing jobs, no one but a few want to object too strongly or even look too seriously at teh dnagers having 3 big wells above our water system, along every water system in the area, is going to cause. THAT is what having power and concentration to the "job creators" does. It forces people to ignore danger so they can get a paycheck.

And, when the "alternative" is a welfare check... well, that is exactly where the powers that be want it. Neither those on welfare NOR those working will say much against the power brokers.

The problem I see is that a significant portion of the country wants and expects welfare. It would seem that government sponsored welfare is now part of our social fabric. How realistic is it to expect whole sale changes?

That's exactly what the progressives have been doing ever since Wilson was in office. They coerce you into voting for their unconstitutional schemes (like Social Security) in the name of being selfish and not helping out the less fortunate, and then once it has become ingrained into the system, they jack up the costs, payouts, and demonize anyone who wants to make one iota of reform to it. They even do it by constitutional means such as passing the income tax amendment on the premise that it will only be the very wealthy who will pay the tax and that even then it would never go above 1%. We all know how that one has turned out.

Nice twisting. Its not social security that kills people today, but it actually is true that things like food subsidies and the like are enabling big corporations like Walmart to pay only meager wages.

One problem is that we have too many of the same systems trying to do for people with varied needs. The idea of millions of disabled people really was not an issue when SS was invented. Frankly, most people who were really ill died. Many more were warehoused into things euphamistically called "institutions".

The Social Security system should be reserved for the retired. We need a different kind of system to deal with the disabled. We DO need bottom like "catches" because some people just plain are too disabled, too mentally ill, etc to truly work. We actually do an OK job in that regard in many locations, but the way its done is too expensive. AND, yes, in some cases we have to say something close to "no". There is little sense in hiring a $40,000 a year aid to assist one child constantly so they can lift a finger.. maybe, while forcing the rest of the elementary school to be crammed into classes of 30-40 kids. There is something between pushing those highly disabled onto a garbage dump and spending tens of thousandands to no real end except making people feel they have "done all the could" for the disabled. (I do have ideas on that, but this is not the place).

Others just hit a section of hard luck and offering them a bit of help. When I was laid off in Mississippi, it struck me as strange that I could get, for free an apartment. However, I could not get even a help paying the interest on my mortgage, nevermind that my entire monthly payment was far less than any rental in the area. I did not need the help, it turned out.. I got a job almost immediately and rented out my house, but I started thinking about the "in case". We see something similar today. Banks were happy to offer stupid loans to stupid people because they could make huge profits. BUT, now that some of those people, and not all of them even truly stupid, (many were tricked, some just plain lost jobs or got ill.. things no one can truly prevent) the banks are not obligated in any way to offer some of their prior earnings to help out those people. In fact, they have turned around and raised interest rates on almost every credit card holder, just because they could.

THOSE things are driving more and more people into default, into hardship who only just needed, in some cases, not even truly a gift of any kind.. just equity. Just a maintainance of supposedly "fixed" credit card rates or just a modification of a mortgage to current interest rates...

AND... why is it that its ONLY the homeowner's responsibility to pay for excesses when a home is "under water", worth less than is owed. Most people have little idea of real estate values beyond their appraisals. The BANKS are the ones who are supposed to know. Yet... now they are stepping back, laughing and asking everyone in the country to take on the burden their negligence created. They took the profits when times were good, now they ougth to have to take the penalty when times are bad. BUT... in a society so oriented toward the top, it is only those at the bottom who have to pay.

So if a natural disaster strikes it's the peoples problem?

Actually, yes. One of the most famous examples was from the 1800s when a severe famine struck Texas. The people affected by that went to the federal government asking for aid, and the government turned them down. When the surrounding people heard about this, they donated money and resources to the affected individuals. Their donations were triple the amount the people had asked for from the government. People will always help other people when there are dire circumstances. However, the current governmental structure allows people to just pass on the problems of others onto the government.

Some people will help when they can, but such individual help is notoriously inefficient and spotty, going only to those "attractive" causes. The kids and puppies...

[AAFitz]

So you're saying government intervention didn't raise the quality of life of the poor, but the quality of life of the rich? Yeah, that's probably true, although I would argue that government has raised the quality of life of the rich for the past 2,000 years.

And youd be right, and would argue it shows we are slow learners. I would also suggest that the 2000 years could probably be changed to the beginning of civilization and government.

I suppose the dark ages however, would be questionable though...if the religious governments of the time, did not suppress science, it is very possible indeed, that much medical and other innovation would have improved the lives of all people rich and poor much sooner than it ultimately did.

I do not agree that religious governments in, for example, the dark ages (which, at least in Europe, were not religious governments) repressed science. In fact, I think if you look at history, most (and likely all) scientific thinkers prior to the 18th century were religious men.

True, and maybe worth pointing out that a modern conception of science didn't really form until the late 17th century anyway. So it's sort of difficult to argue that a, say, 13th century government was repressing science, cos then you've got to ask what science meant in the 13th century.

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

[PLAYER57832]

You went to college, dincha?

Which is why complaints about "no government assistance" are rather disengenuous. Very few people go to college solely on their own. Evne when they get help from parents or when parents pay the bill "entirely", those colleges depend heavily on government assistance to operate.

[PLAYER57832]

Personally I think the woman is largely irrelevant to the wider issues. Sure she should be condemned, but she is not a valid rationale for scrapping welfare systems world wide.

I'd personally rather have people fend for themselves than see any of our money taken by force to be given to people like the woman in this story.

I had an aunt (through marriage) that was on public assistance after she bankrupted my uncle...and I was appalled with the way she spent her money. I'd have cut them off from all monetary assistance. I'd have made sure my cousins had cloths/food, but paper money was of more use being burned to heat your home than being given to her.

Except "public assistance" IS just about giving the kids clothing, food... and yes, shelter. So, basically, you are saying that you don't want public assistance... but you want people to still have the things public assistance provides.

[BigBallinStalin]

The government creates the strong incentive for very poor people to continuously procreate. Essentially, welfare services (like medicare and medicaid, and subsidies within the tax code) reward people who earn very little for producing more kids. People tend to be geared toward thinking in the short-term, so they'll discount the long-term costs of raising kids in exchange for the immediate tax credits and services received by the government.

NOPE!

The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

There's a difference between the government creating an incentive which shapes human behavior (my position) and the incentives which shape government/political behavior (your position).

Seeing that you failed to see this distinction by conflating the two different positions, and that you simply discarded my entire argument without really addressing it (via your patented Tangent to the Unknown), then I'd be glad to discuss your criticism if someone else takes up the torch and pitchfork. Or if you wanted to focus on one specific thing in the argument, then I'll talk with you about it.

Nice try at sidswiping the issue by, again pretending that you sit in some lofty hallowed position of understanding that the rest of us cannot possibly understand.

The government has no independent incentives. Leaders have incentives to keep their power. People have incentives to demand security and safety. In the past, the two worked in tandem (oppositional tandem, but it worked). However, just as monarchs in the past gained too much power and became abusive, the heavy capitalists of today are also deciding that its OK for them to have everything and give nothing to those below .. or only very little.

That we are not yet at the point of having droves starving, massive plagues, etc is a benefit of technology, but the disparity is still there, and still marked.

Yes, that's nice.


Excuse me:

[TheProwler]

I figure I can just trade lead for anything I need. Dish out lead for gold, silver, food, shelter, women. Whatever I should happen to want or need. I gotz lotz of lead.

Hahaha!!

You won't be the only one who goes that route. Security and self-defense are always a consideration of mine. You might find that your plan runs into a few snags along the way....