FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
mmmmmm I think you are taking that to an extreme. Democrats want stable, productive social services. But yes, they do believe in progressive taxation. Progressive taxation isn't some commie pipe dream. It is an American value that arose during the "progressive" era in American history. Personally, I think Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin FDR (as two of the most prominent progressive thinkers in American history) had the right idea.

It's all a matter of degrees, and how the money is spent.
The welfare system in America right now sucks. It's just throwing bad money after bad. I would rather see the system overhauled and the money be used more effectively to HELP people, and not just continue the welfare state that has been created. While I will admit the Repubs haven't come up with a solution, the Dems solution is to just tax more, and spend more money.
To me... that solution just sucks more. It doesn't solve the problem, and just costs me more money.

[Japher]

Read "The Millionare Nextdoor"

One of things they mention is about "weaking the weak".

They say that one problem parents have is that they continue to "help" the child who has the worse spending habits, and thus gets themselves into debt time and time again. Their inability to handel money is never addressed, and thus they end up being worse off than their parents.

Thus is the case with welfare. We do not teach them to be responsible for themselves, and why should they?!

The only solution that came close to what I would like to see is Pete Wilsons ban on second generation welfare recipients. The only problem with that is that kids learn by example, and if their parents are losers what is to get the kid not to be.

As a republican I am for social welfare, but not unless it means social reform, and that is not something the current system promotes or even supplies. Democratic resolutions to social welfare is pathetic, and IMO is only to keep the child suckeling upon their *** for votes.

[Agathon]

The purpose of welfare is not primarily redistributive. Most welfare programs are compulsory insurance schemes instituted by the state because the market won't provide them.

You can say what you like, but developed countries with more extensive welfare states do not have the ridiculous social problems that the United States has.

Someone once said that the US was an experiment to see how much waste and inefficiency people could tolerate in the name of personal liberty.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Agathon
You can say what you like, but developed countries with more extensive welfare states do not have the ridiculous social problems that the United States has.

Like what?

[Agathon]

Thus is the case with welfare. We do not teach them to be responsible for themselves, and why should they?!

Sorry, but you are just so completely wrong that it's not funny.

I grew up in a society with an extensive welfare state. Substantial benefits were available to the unemployed, the sick and the injured. But it happened to be the case that there was virtually full employment (and I don't mean burger flipping jobs, but decent work). People wanted good jobs, and almost everyone (apart from a few hippies) was prepared to work.

Increases in welfare recipients started because unemployment rose and because good jobs with decent conditions and pay were replaced by terrible jobs that were badly paid.

There's no simple correlation between the availability of welfare benefits and a lack of desire to work. Most people, if given the chance of a decent job, would work, because spending all day at home on welfare is crushingly boring and socially limiting.

[Agathon]

Like what?

Violence, poverty, lack of decent education.

Come walk around downtown Toronto in the middle of the night and you'll see what I mean. It's by far the safest city I've ever lived in.

[KrazyHorse]

Progressive taxation isn't some commie pipe dream. It is an American value that arose during the "progressive" era in American history

The two terms derive from the same base, but the term "progressive taxation" is not derived from the political term "progressive", nor is the situation reversed.

Progressive taxation is called such because you progressively tax more and more of somebody's income at higher and higher levels. Progressives call themselves this because they want to "progress" i.e. move society in a direction they see as forward.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS.

The economy has 'turned a corner'. Look at GDP growth rates. Poverty numbers are irrelevant.

No. What good is even astronomically huge economic growth if poverty is increasing? A healthy growing economy should never lead to an increase in poverty unless the economy isn't doing it's job. Economic growth is a means to an end not an end in and of itself. At the very least we should try to determine why the poverty is increasing and see if any policies may be aggravating that cause.

[Agathon]

Americans need to answer the question of why they fail to be top of the UN Human Development index year after year, despite being by far the richest country in the world. Canada has consistently beaten the US despite being nowhere near as rich.

All the top countries have extensive welfare programs as part of a mixed economy. They win because their economies are better adapted to serving the various needs of their citizens. They do more with less - they are more efficient.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Japher, interesting numbers. It seems then, according to the stats, that the poverty level in '03 was lower than in 1998 (when it was considered a 'boom') and rising povery levels are still much much less than they were in 1993.

This on the otherhand I can see as relevant!

[Agathon]

Geronimo is right.

The UNHDI was created to judge performance in meeting real goals instead of focusing blindly on GDP.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Eighty-four of the last ninety-four economic contractions have happened during Repug administrations. It's a wonder anyone thinks Repugs are better for the economy. "

There have been more Republican Administrations then Democratic Administraitons lately, and the last period of Democratic rule had a technology boom.

[KrazyHorse]

Hmmm. 16 out of the last 24 years or 24 out of the last 36 is as good as you can do for Republicans.

That's still only 66.7%

84/94 is about 89.5%

So Republicans are still more than 4 times as likely to have a downturn in their 4 years as Democrats are...

[Agathon]

Coming soon to a country near you: the complete and final discrediting of the idea that conservatives know anything about how to organize an economy.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Hmmm. 16 out of the last 24 years or 24 out of the last 36 is as good as you can do for Republicans.

That's still only 66.7%

84/94 is about 89.5%

So Republicans are still more than 4 times as likely to have a downturn in their 4 years as Democrats are...

And as I said, there were circumstances during those 8 years that would make a recessin, no matter who is president, unlikely.