President Bush Jr's Scorecard

[Sava]

Ming, take a Sociology class please... there are a lot of fallacies about welfare. I'm sorry, but I've seen too many statistics in my Sociology classes saying they do work.

Perhaps I did forget... sorry

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Ming, take a Sociology class please... there are a lot of fallacies about welfare. I'm sorry, but I've seen too many statistics in my Sociology classes saying they do work.

Perhaps I did forget... sorry

Ah yes... you are taking "A" class... so that makes you an expert

I took Spanish in school... and that doesn't mean I'm an expert in it

Go out into the poor sections of a major city, and do your own personal survery and ask people if they think Welfare is working for them...

[Sava]

No, it simply means I'm more informed than the average person...

Go to the poor sections of a city? Sure, if I wanted a survey that simply reflected the results of a small portion of people that are chronically poor. My dad received disability when he had a stroke. That is welfare. He went through physical therapy and went back to work.

The fact is Ming, the vast majority of people that receive welfare aren't chronically poor. They are middle-class people who fall under tough times. But again, its easy to forget about those who receive welfare and get back on their feet; and focus on those who are chronically poor.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
No, it simply means I'm more informed than the average person...

The use of the rolleyes after your statement sums up what I think of your comment as well

The fact is Ming, the vast majority of people that receive welfare aren't chronically poor.

It depends on your definition of "welfare"... If you are talking about food stamp programs... then you are correct. But if you remove food stamp programs from the equation, your statement is incorrect

[DinoDoc]

You people must enjoy torturing the mentally deficient.

[Sava]

Welfare is any sort of money or compensation given to somebody for free. If you are talking about a certain welfare program, then specify it. Aren't you always saying that generalizing is bad, Ming?

DD:

[Ming]

But you are doing the same... you are trying to give the impression that the majority of people who get welfare checks are middle class... and that is just not even close to being the truth... As I said, it depends on your definition

[Sava]

But, the majority of people that receive welfare are middle class... (sigh)... I'll start a new thread and provide some info, mkay? Semantical arguments will get us nowhere.

[Ming]

I always love how when somebody disagrees with you it's a semantical argument... but when somebody uses that line on you, you just roll your eyes

No need for a new thread... but let me see the stats that show that the majority of people that get welfare checks are middle class. And again, I'm not talking food stamps... we are talking about welfare checks, not all money give aways by the government.

[Ned]

Sava, I see nothing inconsistent with providing a social safety net and also providing a free market economy. But in other posts, you also seem to argue against a free market economy by attacking corporations. In the end, what you want is pure socialism - state control of means of production and a welfare state.

The problem with such systems is that they are highly inefficient. They lead to rough equality, but a a very low economy level - poor but equal.

I think sometimes the people who like capitalism and the people who like socialism never communicate because their objectives are entirely different. The people who like socialism want equality of results. The people who like capitalism want freedom to succeed and need inequality of results. The two objective are dramatically opposed.

As I said before, I like the free market, but I do support a social safety net. This is the best system, IMHO.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ned

[Lars-E]

"I don't suppose a one data point with questionable motives (i.e. sour grapes that his business isn't bigger) is reason for condemnation of all businesses in the US. Naah your right Lars."

You thought I was thinking this was statistically significant, level let's say 5%? You must be joking!!

Just an example from a guy who has crisscrossed the USA and shaken thousands of hands. Again I am not saying this is statistically significant if you still don't get it.

What is more worrying is that you don't listen to the news. You have obvioulsy not heard of the corruption scandals in your country. Enron, AA, etc. Now this is worrying.

[GePap]

Well, lets see:

My Dubya scorecard:

Domestic Policy: ON geting what he wanted: A-, on how good it is for the nation: C-.

Bush got what he wanted most, the Tax cut, so he is happy. The congress got a few things it wanted out of the way, and it deserves as much as the president for anything done with education. Bush economic team is not very good (at the minimum, they are utter failures at good self-publicity) and he hasd done little in terms of economic policies aftre the tax cut.

War on terrorism:

War in Afghanistan: B-
Defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda with minimal US loss or cost (though this is hardly such an accomplishment) and has helped create a nucleaus government in Kabul with some hope. BUt failed to round up the top leadership of Al Qaeda as promised, and has refused to extend our help to this nucleaus government outside of Kabul.

Departemnt of Homeland Security:F
A departemn with Customs and the Coast Guard in it, but not the FBI or CIA? Every and any department that might have a very tenous, round-about connection to stopping terrorism but without enough political support to maintain its own sovereignty was rounded up an cobbled into this monstorsity. YOu guys talk about wasteful government spending? Lookie here.

War on Iraq: F
My statements on this policy are plentyful. I won't repeat them.

War on Al Qaeda: B
THe security establishment has been good at stopping new atatcks and tracking individuals.

Overall scorecard: For himself, the Republican party, and gettin re-elected in 2004, B+.
For everyone else: C-.


As for the ongoing Capitalism debate:

One thing is vital for Capitalism to work: information. An individual would have to know several things to then be able to make an intelligent and reasoned decision based on teh cost/benefit annalysis of an action. Unfortunitelly the average person does not have a way to get enough information to make a good reasoned guess, so that most time, people's choices are still based on hunches or whims, since they can hardly do better. Then there is the problem of interested parties making up, or giving out misleading information, which is why controlling and regulating the chanels of information is so vital to make the system work: if rampant lying occurs then the market fails.

Another problem with capitalism is thus: In a system of winners there must be losers: not everyone can win: we need maids, bus boys, seravnts, and if you believe in the system so much, you must acknowledge that the system will insure that we have busboys and maids and janitors. Not everyone can be rich, period. That is impossible. Now, at the same time, Capitalism is great at creating wealth. But this creates the problem of relative comparisons. People do not judge their standing on an absolute plain: they judge how they are doing based on other in the system. This is not only true for cost of lfe issues (a working poor person in the US is FAR FAR better of that poor working people in the 3rd world) but also in how one defines success. Thus capitalism breeds unhappiness not because it fails to create wealth (this it does fantastically) but because as everyone rises, everyone devalues it, and wants more and more, to equal those that have won, even though they can't, for the systm won't allow it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Departemnt of Homeland Security:F
A departemn with Customs and the Coast Guard in it, but not the FBI or CIA? Every and any department that might have a very tenous, round-about connection to stopping terrorism but without enough political support to maintain its own sovereignty was rounded up an cobbled into this monstorsity. YOu guys talk about wasteful government spending? Lookie here.

The Department of Homeland Security IS going to have the FBI and CIA under it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Another problem with capitalism is thus: In a system of winners there must be losers: not everyone can win: we need maids, bus boys, seravnts, and if you believe in the system so much, you must acknowledge that the system will insure that we have busboys and maids and janitors.

Well for right now... there are tons of people HAPPY to be doing those jobs. They are called illegal alliens. They are making far more money then they could at home in their poorer countries. However, this will be a problem when those countries start catching up with the US in terms of overall standard of living.

Also, many of the jobs, such as bus boys and fast food workers can be done by students and older people. Young people will get their chance after they finish college and join the real work force... Older people have already done their thing, and are looking to keep themselves busy, or supplement their fixed income.

And yes... some people will make that decision not to go to college... a bad choice, but theirs to make. They will also be doing these kind of jobs.