posted on October 30, 2002 09:17:56 AM new
Reamond -
Would you mind elaborating on the above statement please? In what way(s) do you see the conservative approach as being wrong, and what goals do you believe the liberals have that you see as being wrong?
posted on October 30, 2002 09:43:07 AM new
"solutions that Conservatives offer are simple solutions to very complex problems and because of that, they are ineffective and do not work."
What are you smoking? The Liberals answer is to throw more money at the problem which only compounds it. Schools, and welfare have never improved by having more money thrown at it. That is essentially socialism, which we know by looking at other Socialist countries, that is a failure.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:03:46 AM new
"there do NOT have to poor people in this world."
I'm not going to harp on your sentence structure, but I do have to question whether eliminating poverty is such a good idea. Where is the money going to come from? From the pockets that do have money? The middle class can't afford it, and the wealthy already invest that money in productive ways that create new jobs, improve efficiencies, elminate diseases, improve education, make our lives better. Taking that money from a productive means to a less productive means would cripple our country. Soon, the middle class couldn't find jobs and there'd be more poor people. The free market approach of punishing losers and rewarding winners is the best way, it may not be the kindest way but why drag everyone down for the sake of the incompetent few?
posted on October 30, 2002 10:15:49 AM new
"Look at history and you'll see that the conservative approach is wrong, and the liberal approach has the wrong goals."
That seems backwards. The liberals have the right goals, their means of reaching those goals are wrong.
But the main point you bring out is the government is an interference, that has been proven in history, that the more the government interferes, the worse the country's economy suffers. Every dynasty has been destroyed because of high taxes which go to support the government inefficient programs. It plain doesn't work.
We are supposed to learn from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes, yet the U.S. is repeating the same mistakes. It's a pity, but humans are too emotional to make the right rational decisions, so the U.S. is doomed.
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:27:26 AM new"SOME people saw it differently and thought that they could make a DIFFERENCE. Would you be so crass as to disagree with them?"
>Well, yes I would, I did already, didn't I? -Donny-
Donny, you are not comprehending what I wrote, so I'll take it that I wrote so poorly that you could not see the point. Let me rephrase it for you.
In history, there were a lot more poor and those in poverty AS A PERCENTAGE of the total population than there are today. In Feudal Europe, the non-nobility were little more than slaves with few - if any possessions who worked the land and were cannon fodder in battles played for fun by the nobility. As the modern monarchal system came of age, a more enlightened system of government, the amount of impoverished was reduced slightly as a percentage of the total population. This was intolerable to some people who decided to make a difference.
In this case, these "free thinkers" thought up new forms of government - like the one that we enjoy today. With the creation of modern governments like ours, we have reduced the poverty rate dramatically.
I asked you if you thought that their efforts to make a difference was vain; e.g. you are BENEFITING right now from centuries of trying to fix the problem. And if these same people had the attitude that you do, you and I and most everyone else would be lucky to be a simple pig farmer, let alone actually own any land!
Is that clearer now? Do you see that making an effort to find new ways of living and doing things can reduce the percentage of impoverished in this country?
posted on October 30, 2002 10:32:47 AM new
>What are you smoking? The Liberals answer is to throw more money at the problem which only compounds it. Schools, and welfare have never improved by having more money thrown at it. That is essentially socialism, which we know by looking at other Socialist countries, that is a failure.
As in contrast to Conservatives, who have done . . . what? A total of NOTHING, except complaining and looking down their noses at the poor! That's gotta be a big help to them! Not!
You are also mistaken about liberals throwing money at the problem. As I've said before: show us how to solve the problem WITHOUT money! Show us the Conservative Answer! Explain in detail, so that it will survive scrutiny, exactly HOW the Conservative approach is anything other than horseshit!
While Conservatives might be willing to work entirely for free to help the poor 40 to 60 hours a week, most other people are not. It takes money to pay people to work, it takes money to create a place for them to work at and to maintain it. It takes money to do the simplest of things, because we are a capitalist country and that means spending money.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:39:20 AM new"there do NOT have to poor people in this world."
>I'm not going to harp on your sentence structure,
Good. Because if you did that, every word of yours that you posted here would forever be scrutinized and every grammatical error and misspelling thrown back in your face! So don't try to overwhelm me with your false generosity!
> but I do have to question whether eliminating poverty is such a good idea. Where is the money going to come from? From the pockets that do have money? The middle class can't afford it, and the wealthy already invest that money in productive ways that create new jobs, improve efficiencies, elminate diseases, improve education, make our lives better.
Were are we going to get the 200 Billion dollars TO START WITH to go blow Iraq to bloody bits with?
If it were up to me, I'd rather try fixing our economy with that money than to kick some dictator's ass who isn't a threat to America.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:41:23 AM new
Conservatives are wrong because they believe that doing nothing will alleviate poverty, and the liberal's goal is to eradicate poverty. Both are wrong.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:52:36 AM new
"As in contrast to Conservatives, who have done . . . what? A total of NOTHING, except complaining and looking down their noses at the poor! That's gotta be a big help to them! Not!"
Providing them jobs, which is the path out of poverty not feeding them which makes the poor more dependant.
"show us how to solve the problem WITHOUT money!"
It's already being done with our schools system, the schools that get more government money are actually doing worse than the one's who get no money. That's a fact reported in the newspaper recently. Compare Fedex to the USPS, USPS doesn't work because they are ineficient, Fedex works because they have pressure to turn a profit so they operate more efficient.
Since many poor are not inerested in working (more details if you you want them), some are lazy (again more details if you ask, and many poor mistakingly thinking they are worthless and incapable of fittting in, how do you change them? You can't. If they aren't willing to help themselves, why should anyone else care. That would encourage more people to act that way if thye could get free handpouts for doing nthing, that is counterproductive.
So, the conservative approach is what made our country great in the first place, offer the poor opportunity.
"While Conservatives might be willing to work entirely for free to help the poor 40 to 60 hours a week, most other people are not. It takes money to pay people to work, it takes money to create a place for them to work at and to maintain it. It takes money to do the simplest of things, because we are a capitalist country and that means spending money."
I'm not sure if you have your facts straight. Aren't there a lot of grass root people out there voluntaring for their causes? Most of these are liberals who's answer is to use socialist means of pouring money into dead causes. I think you're arguing for conservatives without knowing it.
posted on October 30, 2002 11:00:15 AM new
Reamond - Fair enough...although again I disagree on the 'doing nothing part'.
Many on the right are religious people. And then again many aren't but rather share a common belief of personal independence, not government reliance.
[I know how you feel about religion/the religious.] But while you disagree with their methods they are doing considerable work to aid the poor and needy in the US and all over the world. One example - Alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. won't only find help and a new life by services being paid for with tax dollars. There are organizations that will provide them with help for free. Usually meeting at 'religious' owned properties. But because so many liberals are anti-religious they don't want this help being provided by ANY religious group. Any other way...or not at all rather than by the religious organizations that do so for free.
To me...what difference does it make as long as the needy get the help they need.
posted on October 30, 2002 11:04:01 AM new
"Good. Because if you did that, every word of yours that you posted here would forever be scrutinized and every grammatical error and misspelling thrown back in your face! So don't try to overwhelm me with your false generosity!"
First of all I was joking, I couldn't care less about his grammar. Second, I would than anyone for their generousity for pointing out my misspelling or grammar errors. It could help me become a better speller, or at least correct my errors so the sentence makes sense and my message get across. It's not necessary though, not in this forum. It's just a bunch of "friends" chatting right?
"Were are we going to get the 200 Billion dollars TO START WITH to go blow Iraq to bloody bits with?"
{uhh, spelling error. JK.} The government spends most if that money already on training so war won't actually won't cost that much. I'm against war anyway, but I agree, create peace not war. However, there are some good things that come out of war. Better technology, jobs in rebuilding; jobs in building weapons. WWII got us out of the depression, and government spending now can get us out of this recession.
posted on October 30, 2002 11:11:47 AM new"Look at history and you'll see that the conservative approach is wrong, and the liberal approach has the wrong goals."
>That seems backwards. The liberals have the right goals, their means of reaching those goals are wrong.
I think that the Conservatives are summarizing the sentiments needed for someone to be productive and self-sufficient in our society. The rest of the population wants to use the government to try to step in and to help solve some problems that only it can solve. And that takes money.
Let me explain how that works to the benefit of your pocket, Quickdraw.
Crime costs society in property loss and personal loss in so many ways. To combat Crime, we can hire more police, build more courts, hire more judges and staff, build more prisons and hire staff for them, and then warehouse the offenders. That costs a lot of money!
Lao Tzu wryly noted that the more policemen that there are, the more criminals that there are.
Conversely, programs that try to get at the causes of crime and criminal behavior have met with some success. While only a short list, the causes of crime are often rooted in poverty and mental illnesses. Because we have tried to feed people as we housed them so that they can get an education and then become wage earning citizens we keep them from going after a life of crime and destruction.
While not perfect, the system has SAVED you a lot of money! For every person on welfare that receives $12,000 a year in benefits, compare that to the $36,000 a year to warehouse someone in prison! The Conservative approach is to convict and to warehouse people and the Liberal approach is to try to get at the root causes.
>But the main point you bring out is the government is an interference, that has been proven in history, that the more the government interferes, the worse the country's economy suffers. Every dynasty has been destroyed because of high taxes which go to support the government inefficient programs. It plain doesn't work.
WOAH! Now you're stomping on my home turf! Can you name even one dynasty (monarchy) that was destroyed because of taxation? I think that any dynasty or nation that you'd care to mention would not withstand historical scrutiny! You have drawn the wrong conclusions from history. Every dynasty and nation follows a cyclical pattern, from rise to fall, and taxation has never been the cause! In fact, taxation built the great Roman Empire and taxation fed the masses in Rome and gave them Entertainment! That actually KEPT Rome from falling! Leaders who use taxes to help the citizens spend their taxes much more wisely than have tyrants who spend all of a nation's tax money on pet war projects!
Spending tax money on the military is often a source of rebellion in history. Tax money that is spent on the military is akin to flushing money down the toilet - you gotta do it, but you want to keep from being excessive about it!
> We are supposed to learn from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes, yet the U.S. is repeating the same mistakes.
You are correct! G. Bush is spending $200 BILLION up-front to go attack Saddam, who is not a threat to us now or ever. That money should go to fix our economy so that the burden of taxation will be lifted.
G. Bush is also making the same mistakes that the British Empire did over there. He is too stupoid to know history and will not learn any and his advisors have not learned any history, so we are all condemned to repeat the failures of invaders from Ancient Greek and Roman Empires to the British Empire!
posted on October 30, 2002 11:14:49 AM new
"Conservatives are wrong because they believe that doing nothing will alleviate poverty, and the liberal's goal is to eradicate poverty. Both are wrong."
Conservatives offer hope and opportunity. Liberals want poor to be dependant. Why is it in the best economy there are still poor? I don't know why we should do anything about the poor if they won't help themselves. Opporunities are already here, there's free job training available.
posted on October 30, 2002 11:21:43 AM new
To make a blanket statement like Bush is spending $200 BILLION up-front to go attack Saddam, who is not a threat to us now many believe differently or ever is really wild IMO.
How in the world would you personally KNOW if left to his own devices he would or wouldn't present a threat to us in the future?
posted on October 30, 2002 11:30:30 AM new
>Since many poor are not inerested in working (more details if you you want them), some are lazy (again more details if you ask, and many poor mistakingly thinking they are worthless and incapable of fittting in, how do you change them? You can't.
That's one place where you are most definitely wrong. How do you change the minds of smokers? How have we changed the minds of people before? Poverty is a culture as much as anything else. By changing the culture, you can change the mindset of most people. That's worth doing.
With poverty, you need to address the root causes. So many that I know have emotional problems that impairs them from being largely employable. Conservatives may offer them jobs, but it is also Conservatives who fire them the next day! I know of many impoverished who are barely educated enough to read or write. They have lived long enough to realize what a terrible mistake it was that they made. But they see no way out of the situation that they are in. It takes PROGRAMS to come to those people and make offers to them to go help themselves, as in Community Colleges, which are now beyond the reach of many poor!
>Conservatives offer hope and opportunity.
Conservatives do indeed offer hope and opportunity -- just as soon as any poor get their act together. But they won't lift a finger to help show them the way, help to teach them how to do it, won't untie the ropes that hold people down who want to make the change in their lives. Yep. The "Conservative Opportunity" is all there, just as soon as Liberals get it all fixed!
Liberals want poor to be dependant.
That's an outright lie! Shame on you! And if you truly believe that, then I will not discuss this any further with you.
posted on October 30, 2002 11:35:19 AM new
>How in the world would you personally KNOW if left to his own devices he would or wouldn't present a threat to us in the future?
How do I answer this without sounding sarcastic, Linda? You use logic and common sense.
Iraq is a small country, with a fourth-rate military and a murderous dictator. Absolutely anyone who knows this problem leader will tell you: he is neither stupid nor mad. For him to launch an attack at us from some 12,000 miles away would incur the wrath of the people of the United States of America! Not only would we go kill him, but we'd vaporize the country of Iraq from sea to shining sea, rendering it uninhabitable for the next 500,000 years!
So, Linda, tell us how he's going to be a threat to America, now or later?
posted on October 30, 2002 11:56:18 AM new
Borillar - First of all just because you THINK he won't for the reasons you gave, doesn't mean he will act rationally, or that you couldn't be wrong [just this once ]. And should he it might just be too late for us. Again, no one would ever have imagined/predicted the total damage that just 3 airplanes could do to NY. [Let alone bio and chem warfare.]
One problem I have the most trouble with is that you seem to be for less and less military. Okay..everyone's welcome to their opinion. But if we don't keep our military in top form and say 10 - 20 years from now something/some[crazy]leader decides to attach our country...what would we have to go bomb them to smitherines with? A military force that couldn't do so, is my answer.
Another problem I have with your 'take' on this is [I've asked you before, and you never have answered]...why is it that you believe the US needs UN support BEFORE taking military action, but it doesn't seem to bother you one bit that it's Saddam who's not living up to the UN agreement he signed and the UN has yet to force him to have totally open inspections to PROVE he's not a threat to the US? I just don't understand this concept. To me, just prove it and the whole problem goes away.
Now we find out N. Korea has been working on nuclear weapons while all the time past administrations thought they were keeping this from happening. You think for one minute that Iraq couldn't have been doing exactly the same thing as N Korea has? Sure they could have. And I stand behind Bush [even if it's our country going it alone] in being SURE, rather than guessing they aren't doing exactly what N Korea has admitted they have been doing...while lying about it all along.
And last....
You're making a guess...just as your opposition is doing, but they want to KNOW the truth.
posted on October 30, 2002 12:42:18 PM new
"For every person on welfare that receives $12,000 a year in benefits, compare that to the $36,000 a year to warehouse someone in prison! The Conservative approach is to convict and to warehouse people and the Liberal approach is to try to get at the root causes."
Very general point. Many people on welfare are single mothers, and I doubt they have time to commit crimes.
A lot of crime by poor people is because they don't have a job, or the job doesn't pay good compared to selling drugs. Being on welfare won't solve that problem. Welfare probaby doesn't elminate any crime.
"Can you name even one dynasty (monarchy) that was destroyed because of taxation? I think that any dynasty or nation that you'd care to mention would not withstand historical scrutiny! You have drawn the wrong conclusions from history."
Here's more: "The most impressive analysis of Egypt's demise came from the great Russian scholar Rostovtzeff. He believed, after a lifetime of study, that the decay in Egyptian society was the result of lawlessness in the bureaucracy, especially the tax bureau. The king could not restrain it and his orders went unheeded. Rostovtzeff felt that the continual and unabated tyranny of Egyptian tax collectors produced a nationwide decline in incentive. Egyptian workers and farmers lost their desire to work - agricultural lands fell into disuse, businessmen moved away and workers fled. Sound money disappeared as a raging inflation destroyed what capital there was. The land became filled with robbers who wrecked commerce and brought fear and despair to the populace. Boating and sailing along the Nile became as dangerous as walking at night on the back streets of New York and Detroit. In the end, thieves were no longer only in the tax bureau - they were everywhere."
Adams devotes several chapters to Roman taxation and concludes:
"The prevalence of crippling taxation prior to the fall of Rome has led many historians, in all ages, to suspect that Rome, like so many great empires, taxed itself to death."
Taxes may build a country, but they can also destroy it.
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
[ edited by quickdraw29 on Oct 30, 2002 12:44 PM ]
posted on October 30, 2002 02:30:32 PM new
"Providing them jobs, which is the path out of poverty not feeding them which makes the poor more dependant."
This made me laugh, unintentionally. If we could only wean The Poor off of their dependancy on food. It's like drug dependancy. Going cold-turkey might kill them, but we could lower the dosage bit by bit, until they were no longer dependant on food and could do without it completely.
Our modern welfare state has its roots in Victorian England, when there came to be a shift from the practice of distinguishing the "deserving" from the "undeserving" poor. What we're seeing now is a swing back in the other direction, and the distinction is being made again.
But, even the deserving poor didn't fare very well under the Victorian/Pre-Victorian system of leaving the care of the poor only in the hands of local churches, local governments, and private philantrhopy. And remember, it wasn't because there weren't enough members of the Church, nearly everyone of the time was a church member. Here was the problem...
When a parish or village had a harsh and ungenerous system of caring for the poor, the poor moved on, to the limits of their mobility, to a locale that had more merciful programs. This worked to discourage local churches and local governments from providing humane care to the poor. Who wants their town to become a magnet for the poor?
Read Mark Twain's "The Prince and the Pauper," or Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist," to see what happens under that type of system.
As to Rome, I don't think they were taxing too heavily in order to support the poor, the problem wsa that the Roman Empire tried to expand itself too far geographically. Taking over the world is an expensive proposition and we may want to keep that in mind.
Anyway, those are all particulars, and it gets more involved the more particular you get. On the simplest level, wealth is land. In feudal societies, land ownership didn't change from generation to generation. So, those who were born poor remained poor, their children were poor, etc., while those families who were landed remained rich through generations. Pearl Buck's "The Good Earth" is an easy illustration of how we're bound by our ability to own land.
Now, land ownership can change much more freely, so the invididual make up of the poor changes in a way it didn't back under strict agricultural feudalism.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:08:19 PM new
>Roman Empire. Read more about ancient Empires here
Even though there was at least one quote by L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame there, at no time in that article did it do more than cry about excessive taxation.
Rome did not fall due to one single cause and taxation was not among the causes. Some of the cheif architechs of Rome's demise was the practice of hring foreign mercenaries to fill the legions, whose loyalty was split and often caused total chaos in the empire. Barbarain Hordes from the north and east continued to pummel the empire. Rome had a water drinking system made with lead pipes. Lead was also used to add flavor to wine, right up until to the middle-ages and into near modern times for Europe. Christianity had a part to play in reordering the old structure of God vs. gods and caused civil wars. The list goes on, but taxation is not among them. Sorry.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:17:50 PM new
I just want to wade here here soooo bad. The misinformation is so rampant. Both the conservatives and the libels are RETARDED when it comes to social programs....
Conservatives want to cut off social welfare to people and put them to work....The question they WILL NOT ANSWER IS WHERE!!!! Go ahead, ask these freaking idiot holes. They say a "Good Jobs", but they happened to have sent them OVERSEAS!!!! McDonald's get MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS to train workers in a six month program...TRAIN THEM TO DO WHAT!!! Recognize pictures of food. So the workers are trained for six months. Does McDonalds keep these "trained" workers. HELL NO! Fires them all, hires a new crew, collect a few more million dollars. Social welfare cost the average american $0.76 a day. Corporate Welfare cost YOU twice that A DAY!(from Upsize This!)
Liberals want to increase welfare by increasing "programs" which is giving money to the WRONG GROUP OF PEOPLE! There are Social Welfare Agencies who receive millions of dollars every year from the taxpayer and their only function is to refer the poor to VOLUNTEER, NON-PROFIT GROUPS!!!!(from Tyranny of Kindness). Andrew Cuomo from New York State, using his Uncle's(?) influnence pocketing hundred's of thousands of dollars in a program to build tempoary housing for the Homeless. Let me clue you in on one thing, the homeless are mainly homeless simply because they do not have PERMANENT HOUSING!!!! If they had taken that money and built permanent housing, some of the homelessness would have been alleviated, BUT, if the problem were to be fixed, the Gov't money would stop flowing in...
Foster Care for kids. Alot of kids are taken away from their mothers because their mothers can't take care of them...Foster care, in New York, cost $50,000 dollars per child. Guess what the number one reason, in New York, mothers are unable to take care of their kids??? Because they live below the poverty level, which is what now, $23,000. WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY JUST GIVE THE MOM 23,000 DOLARS AND SAVE ME 27,000 DOLLARS!
Why won't we pay mothers to take care of their own children and do their housekeeping...but we will subsidize childcare AND pay someone else to hire her to take care of their children and do their housekeeping??? That is kinda IGNORANT!
.
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 30, 2002 03:18 PM ]
posted on October 30, 2002 03:27:08 PM new
"This made me laugh, unintentionally. If we could only wean The Poor off of their dependancy on food. It's like drug dependancy."
Hopefully you're just playing around with words because it is not hard to understand my point. Do we have to feed the poor, or can the poor feed themselves. No one says steal the poor's food, if that is what you're implying.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:33:45 PM new"Another problem I have with your 'take' on this is [I've asked you before, and you never have answered]...why is it that you believe the US needs UN support BEFORE taking military action, but it doesn't seem to bother you one bit that it's Saddam who's not living up to the UN agreement he signed and the UN has yet to force him to have totally open inspections to PROVE he's not a threat to the US? I just don't understand this concept. To me, just prove it and the whole problem goes away."
Linda, the answer(s) would take more than a few pages of text here. Are you ready to read a book? Furthermore, will you pay me for my time in getting the materials together for you to get that education? If not, then you can forget my compiling all of the material that you need to become fully informed on this. I've told you that before as well.
I will give you this synopsis and it'll have to do for you.
There are plenty of articles on the Internet that do well going into the reasons why we should act unilaterally without the UN and why we should act multilaterally in concert with the UN. I think it all starts at the pre-amble to the United States Constitution. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Note that at no time does it state that we have to go kick the sh*t out of any foreign country that we deem might become a threat in the future!
Since the Constitution was created, we the Nation, have changed. Our interests now lie not just across the river or the other side of the ocean, but everywhere in the world. In order to protect our merchant vessels and our trade, we need a large Navy to protect them. We now also need to place troops on foreign soil to protect our trade and other national interests.
The problem, Linda, is that we aren't the only ones on the planet doing this.
Imagine a giant spider web of interests that leads from every nation on earth to every other nation on earth. What that symbolizes is that fact that we are not the only ones on earth with interests and by pressing our own interests, we can easily be stepping on the feet of another nation's interests -- said interests having been the cause of Wars in the past.
Right now, China is tyranny with a murderous dictatorship with nuclear capability AND they have threatened to use it against us in this last decade alone! China is a +HUGE+ threat to us right now! And every day, China becomes more and more a giant monster that is likely to swallow us whole. And it is a serious and CREDITABLE threat!
In fact, Linda, almost every nation on earth is a threat to us in some way or another!
Linda, how do you define at what point we need to defend ourselves, our trade vessels, our trading ports abroad, our interests abroad AND decide whose ass needs for us to go kicking it?
Many people in America, Linda, feel that we lay low. We do not start hostilities. You can NOT attack a "government" without also attacking that country, that nation of people there! Bush likes to pretend that you can go after and kill the government there, but not the people that live there? BALONEY!
I am NOT for Warmongering! I am not for America to be the World's Bully, because, Linda, when the world gets tired of that crap, they'll all band together and come kick the crap out of US! Just like a Bully gets his due on the playground some day when all the kids band together to all simultaneously beat up on the bully and pound him into the dirt!
So, we need allies. The Bully that acts alone gets the crap beat out of him pretty quickly. But the Bully who gathers his buddies together usually is a lot safer and doesn't get the sh1t kicked out of him!
This is why we need the United Nations to act with us. Not just to bare the financial cost of a War or the resources of a War, but to show a unified front to the world that retaliating on just one of us will get all of us kicking sh*t back out of them!
Linda, that is going to have to do. If you want more, you'll have to go read the Pros and Cons separately from me. I hope that helps you.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:34:41 PM new
"at no time in that article did it do more than cry about excessive taxation."
Wow good analytical skills and reading comprehension. Is that all you got out of it? I guess you know more than these scholars. But you know what, I disagree with you and you can argue otherise, however the rise and fall of every country is always due to money. It's what makes the economy tick. Get it? Economy - Money. Keep making other excuses so you can fund your worthless causes, they always say watch those liberals, they are slick.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:40:54 PM new
Now that was an intersting tidbit of history that I wasn't aware of, Donny! And quite logical. We had a mayor here for a while and his big thing was to help the homeless. His program was so good tha it god rave reviews throughout the nation. We ended up not with a flood of homeless, but certainly more than we had before. The current Republican city government in Portland, Oregon used the bhillyclub approach to homelesness in town and most of it has vanished entirely. Out of sight, out of mind.
Certainly, though, that should be a good reason why social programs should be administerd by paid professionals rather than by volunteer programs and churches.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:45:53 PM new
"Conservatives want to cut off social welfare to people and put them to work....The question they WILL NOT ANSWER IS WHERE!!!!"
Good question, ask the liberals who got the minimum wage law into effect. First, not all poor are worthless, many can get the skills through training programs, or get low paying jobs to feed themselves. The other near worthless poor can't get the jobs because no employer can afford a near worthless worker at minimum wage, therefore these people are unhirable.
I'm thinking let the government hire them since it has never stopped them from hiring less quailified workers before (see Post Ofice and TSA). TSA has re-hired screeners who previously worked for $8.00 and did not hire police officers and other professionals who are skilled in related fields. I've read of people who get their mail mixed up four times a week with their neighbors. The near worthless poor can't do much worse.
Let me add, McDonalds has hired Mentally Retarded people, and although it hurts their profits by having unproductive workers like them, it shows jobs are available for everyone.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:51:26 PM new
mlecher, I thnk what you are really railing at are the problems faced by instituting any program of social intervention.
Conservative do not want change - they want it the way it was with the status quo intact.
The thing is, that for those things that it fixed and did well in, stayed fixed. For those things it did not fixed and made worse were not allowed to be addressed in reform.
Progressives belive in reform.
Liberals decided that since the Conservative ways did not fix all of the social problems that it wouldn't get any worse by trying something new and untested. And this is what Conservatives object to - trying something new to fix the problem. And they point out that when you try to fix a problem, often you get unforeseen new consequences. The Conservative's answer to that: "If at first you don't succeed, don't try at all!"
Every program is going to have it's problems. It becomes a problem for everybody when we stop trying to fix the problems that are created with new programs. The use of pilot programs that we enjoy today were the answer that took a while to come to the forefront. But once they showed their usefullness, we adopted them and now we try out something on a small scale before we just push an entire program on everyone and see how it works then.
Innovations like that are needed - not just bulldozing the whole kit and kaboodle into the landfill just because the new programs showed some new problems!
The key is to keep implementing new programs and new ideas. Putting a time limit on welfare did a lot of good, so long as there were good enough paying jobs for these people to go to. Putting a life-time of benefits, I think, is a major disaster, though. I think that it drops too many people through the holes and I would much rather see a certain time period between the ending and reestablishment of benefits.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:57:46 PM new"Wow good analytical skills and reading comprehension. Is that all you got out of it? I guess you know more than these scholars. But you know what, I disagree with you and you can argue otherise, however the rise and fall of every country is always due to money. It's what makes the economy tick. Get it? Economy - Money. Keep making other excuses so you can fund your worthless causes, they always say watch those liberals, they are slick."
I'm sorry, gravid, but taxation does not destroy dynasties or nations in history, although it can be a contributing factor to the unhappiness of the people. Excessive taxation stifles the economy and idiot Kings and Queens in the middle-ages used to routinely ruin their kingdoms by eyeing their neighbor's territory too closely. It wasn't until after the Protestant Reformation and such enlightened writings of advanced thinkers such as 'The Wealth of Nations" that commerce and the part it played to a nation's economic health were clearly understood. And we are still into that trend of fine-tuning with such innovations as to state-sponsored Corporation and stock markets.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:12:33 PM new
"taxation does not destroy dynasties or nations in history, although it can be a contributing factor to the unhappiness of the people."
Let's see, people have less money to invest; less incentive to invest or work; money is pouring into unproductive means set by the government, yet "taxation does not destroy nations." Have you noticed what happens when less money flows in the economy? Tip: read today's newspaper. Economies crumble. That increases crime, and all those other excuses that you have rolling around in your head that creates a Dynasty to crumble. Cause and effect.
]. And should he it might just be too late for us. Again, no one would ever have imagined/predicted the total damage that just 3 airplanes could do to NY. [Let alone bio and chem warfare.]