Congressional GOP Are Scum!

[Berzerker]

Lenders are supposed to be careful about who they lend to, not look for the government to bail them out.

S & L scandal in a nutshell, but I thought the left loves government bailouts for all sorts of things .Isn't that what liberalism is all about? "Insurance" safety nets?

[Berzerker]

Again, so far most of the empirical evidence I have seen has shown only a small effect on employment.

Small effect accompanies small increase. But a big effect on the people who lose their jobs...

[Berzerker]

Oh, when lenders are careful they're accused of redlining and racism.

[Agathon]

Yeah, stock traders assault a bunch of pacifists.

I'd like to see them try the same with the Black Block - they'd get their heads kicked in.

[SnowFire]

Late to the party, but one point. The US has had, for a long time, an underclass of illegal immigrants who quietly work for 2 bucks an hour off the record, or so. This isn't news. However, if we want to even have a smidgen of a chance of detecting "terrorists," we just can't have an entire class of people leaving under the law with no official names and no one to notice whether they live or die. It won't matter how draconian our surveillance is if the people they're looking for aren't even on the radar.

If we'd like to fix this problem, perhaps we should lower the minimum wage, but rigidly enforce it- no more casual off the books hiring. Then make certain that these people earning low incomes are on the books and qualify for aid in assisting the poor, which would hopefully solve the worries about living on an "unlivable" wage. Plus make certain OSHA standards and so on are followed. Combine that with immigration reform... well, I'm dreaming now, but just think. We could allow businesses to set whatever they like for wages, which WOULD increase the number of jobs being offered as DanS and elementary economics point out; people would be guarenteed basic workplace rights; and people trying to support families off currently sub-minimum wage jobs could be sure they didn't starve to death. Might be a strain on our welfare budget, but we're cheating it right now by not paying those people, so meh.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Originally posted by Sava
that doesn't mean we can't strive to make it as fair as possible

Why make it fair? How far do you go? Communism? Not a good track record...I say govern enough to remove all real barriers, and let Darwinism work out as it does in nature. Evolution has worked well.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Originally posted by Sava
I'd rather be a bum than a workaholic.
okay, so they aren't ALL lazy... some are lazy and some are stupid.
chronic usually... but I already confessed I like to stereotype people... why do you think you would be above my stereotypes?

I got the first part loud and clear.

Stupid is purposeful ignorance. Making a mistake once and learning isn't stupid. Making it again is.

I wouldn't expect anything much out of you, no.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Self-denial is self-sacrifice.

Ok.

I'm perfectly fine, thank you. Pessimism is based on facts: it is taking what evidence is given to you, and reading the most conservative estimate. Generally, that leads you to have a negative outlook, but when things exceed your expectations, you're more likely than not pleased. To be optimistic is to take the most liberal estimate. That also means that almost everything will fail to meet your expectations.

I didn't say you weren't fine. Defensive? Pessimism is not based off of facts, it's based off of despair and lack of hope. Nothing you mentioned implies a conservative belief, only absolute defeatism.

If that's fine with you, rock on. Personally, I take the realist approach.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Azazel,

IT IS POSSIBLE FOLKS. IF YOU JUST WORK HARDER!

Your repetitive mantra gets kind of boring. I know people who, on the other hand did work, and lost everything, and never managed to get up on their feet, for real. Just scraps.

Your repetitive ignoring of my other reasons for poverty is proof positive of your lack of desire to have an intellectual discussion. You are more than welcome to argue with a position you create, however. It's entertaining, to say the least.

Of course, they can only blame themselves, and deserve society's dirt in their faces.

Why are you being so dramatic? Too much a fan of reality tv? No, they deserve what they EARN. And who said society should throw dirt in their faces? You have a penchant for the dramatic flair, if I say so myself.

Btw, don't for a moment think that I weep for me:

*blinks*

I am well on my way to doing it just great. I won't however think that those that did slightly worse than me, or maybe did better, but weren't as quick on their feet with some opportunities, deserve to live as ****.

No, they deserve to live as they have earned. Again, very dramatic.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Shi,

That doesn't really change my point. You can't have a society made up entirely of entreprenurs, the entrepreneurs are going to need people to work for them.

Ok, and there are many others in between poor and rich who are not entrepeneurs. I understand the need for all niches in the economy. I am just arguing that no one is trapped forever in a niche. Not for a lifetime.

Right. We are always going to have some people in the underclass, regardless of how hard people in our society work or how educatec our society gets. Out of a desire to help people, it is good to do things to improve the condition of the people in those classes.

Underclass or poverty? There is a difference. A person working two jobs that are both on teh bottom end of the food chain isn't in poverty, although hardly financially secure. My aunt is in that category, yet she isn't by any means considered in poverty. And we do have thing that improve the lives of those people already. Section 8 housing, WIC, and many other private ventures. Not all of which I agree *only the gov't ones*, but all better idealy than outright welfare.

We also have a system that financially rewards charity donations. Who cares of the motive in which it is given, as long as it helps people.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh, when lenders are careful they're accused of redlining and racism.

LOL! Very nice reply!

[Q Classic]

Pessimism is not based off of facts, it's based off of despair and lack of hope.

How is hope factual? Hope, of course, being defined as believing in the off chance that something good will happen, especially when the odds are not in your favor?

Hope is optimism, and is not based on facts. Now, I'm not ragging on hope or faith; it does give plenty of people a Reason and a method for assigning value. Doesn't change the simple truth that facts show that in 5000 years, all they've done will most likely be for naught. Won't change the fact that no matter who's on top or who's on the bottom of this game will be irrelevant five billion years from now.

Nothing you mentioned implies a conservative belief, only absolute defeatism.

It's not defeatism. It's the realist outlook and approach.

[Q Classic]

We also have a system that financially rewards charity donations. Who cares of the motive in which it is given, as long as it helps people.

Actually, I care. I do assign value judgements to motives... and altruism trumps self-interest here. 'Tis better to make charitable donations because you want to, and it's heinous to make charitable donations because it benefits you more.

It's why I don't really give kudos to those who just donate to things like, say, disaster recovery, while I do give props to those who actually go.

[Q Classic]

Ok, and there are many others in between poor and rich who are not entrepeneurs. I understand the need for all niches in the economy. I am just arguing that no one is trapped forever in a niche. Not for a lifetime.

Honestly, I think you overstate the mobility in American society. In a lifetime, it's not very likely that you're going to move up; it's more a generational thing. A parent's more likely to have his or her children suprass their economic level, with a general ceiling in the upper middle class. However, it's really easy to slide downwards in a single lifetime.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Snowfire,

Interesting idea. I don't agree with all of it, however, I do agree that this isn't a "fix one thing, fix it all" type of problem. Getting rid of welfare by itself will not do anything. Lowering/raising the min wage will not do anything. This is a societal problem of enabling the weak. We make it so that it doesn't make sense *opportunistically* to get off of welfare to work a 40 hr job making the same amount of money.

There is no carrot/stick approach, only carrot. If you decide to pop out babies before you can afford them, it's ok. Instead of getting what are the obvious consequences, you will make MORE money. For the uneducated, this sounds like an Utopia.

No, solving the poverty problem will require a social change. We have to understand as a society that making them reliant on us ISN'T helping them. It enslaves them to a domesticated animal life. That's really all they are at the moment, except they have NO use to society, just a drain. Where immigrants are working *and obviously living* on very meager wages, they decide to stay on welfare instead. It then turns into a cyclical problem, where they never get off, and the children learn from the parents.

For all of the years we have had welfare, it hasn't solved it. Look at the socialist countries in Europe. If they have very little poverty, their other citizens are footing hte bill in caring for these people, therefore having very little disposable income and being mediocre together with exorbantly high taxes and declining benefits.