Which is more dangerous to our national security and to the health of our economy?

Which is more dangerous to our national security and to the health of our economy?


Politicians!  :P

Which is more dangerous to our national security and to the health of our economy?


Borrow and spend.

Of course they're both horrible options.  How about cuts taxes and cut spending?  Why is that so hard for those 535 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate?  No matter what, they will not cut any kind of spending.  Even when someone in the body just suggests freezing spending (an increase in spending below the rate of inflation), it sends them into a panic.  All this debt and taxes just so they can get reelected too.

Yet another post where we agree, GWBush....  The Libertarian approach of making government smaller both in taxation and spending is the way to go, but of course, that would piss off too many special interest groups.

Yet another post where we agree, GWBush....  The Libertarian approach of making government smaller both in taxation and spending is the way to go, but of course, that would piss off too many special interest groups.

Like people who don't have enough to eat.

Well, if you're like the crowd running my country who claim to be economic geniuses, the best way to run the country and manage the economy is to tax and NOT spend, then offer massive tax cuts during an election campaign while failing to divulge the resultant effect of inflation blow-out and interest rates hikes.

The biggest problem is accountability.  We just can't see where the money is actually going, well, ultimately it is going into the bush/cheney & co pockets, and that is where the problem lies.  What we need are some good rigid wonks to make sense of where the money is, where it is going, and a stamp that says no, private companies with hidden investors and backers may not steal the taxpayers blind.  They are running this country the way they ran Enron and once again we are only pawns in the game.

Like people who don't have enough to eat.

That's what welfare is for.  We already have programs for the poor.  Granted, I don't mind the idea of eventually socializing medicine.

That's what welfare is for.  We already have programs for the poor.  Granted, I don't mind the idea of eventually socializing medicine.

Ron Paul would get rid of it all!

Ron Paul would get rid of it all!


I keep saying that and nobody listens.

I think Ron Paul could be the best spin job the GOP ever did.  ;D

Like people who don't have enough to eat.
and people who like to successfully drive over the entire bridge and make it to the other side.

Ron Paul would get rid of it all!


That's why we have private charity.

and people who like to successfully drive over the entire bridge and make it to the other side.

Like that bridge in Minnesota?

That's why we have private charity.


Ok, this I don't agree with.

I never donate to charity, why? Because I like my money and don't want to give it to somebody else, I have to be forced to give it to somebody else, in the form of Taxation. I'm thinking most people feel the same way.

Ok, this I don't agree with.

I never donate to charity, why? Because I like my money and don't want to give it to somebody else, I have to be forced to give it to somebody else, in the form of Taxation. I'm thinking most people feel the same way.


No. I would say most people do donate either time or money to some charity or other. 

No. I would say most people do donate either time or money to some charity or other. 


I know only one person that I can think of that does. My Uncle does work for United Way but admits it's only because it's through work and it sets an example for the people working under him.

I can't think of anybody else who contributes (and let me make the point that even I contribute a dollar for a poppy on veterans day and stuff like that but I mean reasonably substantial contributions) and contrary to popular belief, not everyone I know is a heartless brutal nazi.  ;D

Ok, this I don't agree with.

I never donate to charity, why? Because I like my money and don't want to give it to somebody else, I have to be forced to give it to somebody else, in the form of Taxation. I'm thinking most people feel the same way.


If the government got rid of social welfare programs the taxpayers would have more money to donate to charity and church.  Would they?  F*ck no!  If that makes me a cynic, call me a cynic.

That's beyond the point....

Take the problem I mentioned, hunger or "food insecurity."

A high percentage of people who can't make ends meet are elderly.  Many have health problems that do not allow them to eat just anything, such as diabetes or heart failure.  If these folks consume too much sodium, sugars, or cholesterol they die, as in D-E-A-D dead.  If you rely on soup kitchens, food pantries, and church relief, you are at the mercy of whatever the good folks donate.  Hence the need for the food stamp program.  If your doctor prescribes a special diet, food stamps allow you to go to the market and purchase the products you need.

Of course, the "Libertarians" would do away with Medicaid/Medicare, thus the poor and the elderly wouldn't have access to healthcare and croak early, so the point is moot!
:P

Ron Paul would get rid of it all!


If he had the power to, he would.  That's the point though.  Ron Paul would serve as the perfect president for today's politics because he'd always curb government spending.  As president, he doesn't have the power to end welfare unless Congress agrees to it.  Even a Republican Congress would be reluctant to end all welfare, because they know that the backlash from such a move would likely allow a Democratic majority in both Houses.

So, in the interest of getting re-elected, neither majority in Congress would actually get rid of welfare.  Paul would simply keep more from being spent on it than currently is.  I think this is a good thing.

Borrow and spend.  It takes control out of the average citizen's hands.  If you pay taxes obviously you have somewhat of a say in how it is spent.  Borrowing takes that control out of the picture.

As for GWBUSH2004 and his charities response.  That is highly irrational, this isn't the 19th century.

Borrow and spend.  It takes control out of the average citizen's hands.  If you pay taxes obviously you have somewhat of a say in how it is spent.  Borrowing takes that control out of the picture.


:o

Wow! I'd love to live in whatever country you do!  ;D

But seriously, although I agree that borrowing and spending is generally more of a detrimental policy, tax and spend doesn't give the average citizen any more say than borrow and spend, once the government has your money they'll do whatever they please with it.

As for GWBUSH2004 and his charities response.  That is highly irrational, this isn't the 19th century.


What the heck?  19th century?  What does it matter what year it is?  And how are charities irrational?  Many people are helped in this country and around the world every year through private donations.

What the heck?  19th century?  What does it matter what year it is?  And how are charities irrational?  Many people are helped in this country and around the world every year through private donations.


Well, it is irrational to think all the needy in America could subside off of solely charity work.  I'm in favor of reforming the welfare system (and promoting more job training programs to ween people off of it), but even I'll admit that scrapping it altogether is unrealistic.

America has a wishful-thinking attitude about poverty and that's why American poverty remains so abject.  This goes for both advocates of public welfare state and private charity.

The way we want poverty to be:

Exceptional and transitory.

The way it is:

General and permanent. 

For instance, public housing.   Administrators policed the projects to make sure no woman had a man in the house.  Sounds pro-poverty/anti-family, doesn't it?  The idea was public housing was to be an emergency measure.  Once you got married or obtained more money, you wouldn't need it anymore.  A man in the house meant you were cheating the system.  It was fraud.  Unfortunately, there are millions of people who cannot compete in the marketplace.  This truth is anathema to what we as Americans believe.  That is, if you work hard, if  you maintain a positive mental attitude, and if you play by the rules, you will rise out of poverty; you will be able to afford housing at market rates.  This simplistic vision does not illuminate the complexity of economic change and the depths of social problems.  After a half century of hellish public housing projects, we did not revise our Protestant dogma, we dug our heels in and blamed public housing itself for breeding crime and poverty. 

We got rid of the dysfunctional "permanent" welfare state in the 1990s.  At the same time, public housing authorities began demolishing the frightening, crime-ridden housing projects.

However, our attitude about poverty remains unchanged.  It's pretty much the same as it was when the housing projects movemetn started in 1937: If you work hard, if  you maintain a positive mental attitude, and if you play by the rules, you will rise out of poverty; you will be able to afford housing at market rates.

Even folks who are able to apply the three IF's and succeed are still on the edge.  Most of us are two paychecks and an unforeseen circumstance away from ruin.

The conclusion:  The American ethos maintains it is immoral for the government to owe you a living; it is immoral for the government to order the marketplace to pay you a living; and the marketplace most certainly owes you nothing.  It is the lonely province of your good character and personal responsibility to ensure your survival.  Ask any conservative pundit, he will tell you: "Freedom is the freedom to fail."  The problem is you are not free to fail.  Without food and shelter assistance, your failure leads to vagrancy and crime and the state confiscating your freedom.  The costs to the taxpayer of crime, criminal justice, and incarceration outstrip subsidizing a middle class living standard for the accused and impisoned.  Everybody knows this.  It costs more to keep a man in prison for a year than it does to send him to college.  However, our 19th century moralism dictates that punishment is moral while giving away goods and services to the poor is destructive. 

"I'm a conservative...and I'm not sorry!"

We see no problem here.
::)

Unfortunately, there are millions of people who cannot compete in the marketplace.

In economics, you learn that approximately 2 - 3% of the population is "unemployable."  The reasons for this are varied, but the question I have is...  Shouldn't charity take care of those people?  I would argue that the vast majority of poor people do have the potential to rise out of poverty if given enough of a chance.  This is why I see welfare as something like an economic rehab.  You give people a little bit of temporary help in the form of funds and job training, and then they are on their way to being a middle class citizen/family.

For the people who need permanent help, I see them as perfect candidates for charity.  The government and society itself should only be responsible for people who can help themselves (or eventually do so) and veterans that have suffered great losses while defending their country (helping them in the form of veterans' benefits).  Other than them, those who need permanent help should seek private aid.

However, our attitude about poverty remains unchanged.  It's pretty much the same as it was when the housing projects movemetn started in 1937: If you work hard, if  you maintain a positive mental attitude, and if you play by the rules, you will rise out of poverty; you will be able to afford housing at market rates.

Even folks who are able to apply the three IF's and succeed are still on the edge.  Most of us are two paychecks and an unforeseen circumstance away from ruin.

The conclusion:  The American ethos maintains it is immoral for the government to owe you a living; it is immoral for the government to order the marketplace to pay you a living; and the marketplace most certainly owes you nothing.  It is the lonely province of your good character and personal responsibility to ensure your survival.  Ask any conservative pundit, he will tell you: "Freedom is the freedom to fail."  The problem is you are not free to fail.  Without food and shelter assistance, your failure leads to vagrancy and crime and the state confiscating your freedom.  The costs to the taxpayer of crime, criminal justice, and incarceration outstrip subsidizing a middle class living standard for the accused and impisoned.  Everybody knows this.  It costs more to keep a man in prison for a year than it does to send him to college.  However, our 19th century moralism dictates that punishment is moral while giving away goods and services to the poor is destructive.

I see what you're saying, but by those rules, I'm a conservative.  I believe that, for the majority of people, if you try hard enough, you are able to sustain yourself at a lower middle class level.  Much of poverty results from life decisions.  Now, I admit that some people get a really rotten start.  Plenty of people are born into poverty, and it's not easy to get out of it.  This is why I support the idea of changing affirmative action to a class based system that favors all poor people regardless of race.  Such a program would be a nice pick-me-up for those struggling to exit poverty.

In the end, however, this all comes down to will.  No amount of government aid will push you into the middle class without some personal attempts at working hard.

Private charity is good.  It's the right thing to do.  The work ethic and personal responsibility are necessary virtues.

However, charity is neither reliable nor universal enough to address permanent systemic poverty affecting tens of millions.  Furthermore, we must not discount the bleak economic prospects in many areas of this country and the recalcitrant psychology of despair that accompanies it.  Even those individuals who seem content living on the public dole are not.  They would be much happier working and contributing than idling and taking. 

The private sector deliberately engineers what Alan Greenspan called "worker insecurity" into the system.  Also, if a company can save money by shipping jobs out of the country, it will.  Government only engineered the welfare state, which we all agree is an unhappy place.  However, it has been out of the question for government to forbid American companies to outsource jobs to where they can pay the workers the least.  This is where unregulated capitalism leads.  Even if a company's executives have a social conscience, they cannot afford to accrue more costs than their competition.  If company A is allowed to shut its plant in Cleveland and open one in Indonesia where they don't have to obey any environmental regulations and can pay workers two dollars a day, company B cannot stay in Cleveland, cooperate with the EPA, and pay the same workers $15 an hour.  If an elected legislature rules neither company A nor company B can offshore their factories scot-free, then they both stay in Cleveland and can compete within the bounds the legislature has set.  The workers get paid a decent wage, but the executives and shareholders don't make quite as much money.  This is essentially how the American middle class was sustained in the 20th century. 

I could go on about this, but I haven't time at the moment....

In economics, you learn that approximately 2 - 3% of the population is "unemployable."  The reasons for this are varied, but the question I have is...  Shouldn't charity take care of those people?  I would argue that the vast majority of poor people do have the potential to rise out of poverty if given enough of a chance.  This is why I see welfare as something like an economic rehab.  You give people a little bit of temporary help in the form of funds and job training, and then they are on their way to being a middle class citizen/family.


Correct.

I was having a discussion last night with my buddy's brother (a very surprising conversation, the guy walked in smoking a joint with hair down to his ass and grateful dead tattoos all over his arms and proceeded to give me the most conservative economic diatribe I've ever heard) and we raised a couple of good points that fit well here. A percentage of people on welfare are there simply because they've either got the s*8t end of the stick or they made a couple of bad choices. For almost a year my Father was unemployed, now granted, this was in Margaret Thatchers Britain and the reason he didn't have a job is because his company that he owned went bankrupt because the economy was in such an awful position the service they provided wasn't required. (Shop fitting, racks etc) so we had to go on Welfare (well, the Thatcherite equivalent) for almost a year, because he got dealt the s**t end of the stick. Along the same lines a good friend of mine has a degree in computer science and can't find a job.. at all.. because he made a bad choice, he got his degree at the same time 100,000 other people got computer science degrees, the market is flooded with guys with the same education, thus, he made a bad choice, was it a negligent choice? No, just the wrong one. In both of these cases, the individuals involved got off welfare as soon as possible, found jobs and rejoined the market. Now, there's also a percentage of people who are on welfare, simply because, they have no desire to work, because the system is easy to play.. and please don't argue with that, it really is easy to play if you have half a brain. My current job title is Carpenter (I wont go in to why this is slightly bizarre, but just trust me it is) and I'm currently waiting to join the Carpenter's Union, I'll get a slightly better rate of pay, better hours, better benefits etc, great! I'm looking forward to it. I went down to the Union Hall recently and they're actively trying to recruit carpenter's, providing training and making guarantees on hours and wages that I would have though would generate such enormous interest. Put it this way, they're guaranteeing, whilst you're training that you'll be making.. well, certainly enough to rent a decent apartment in this area (a decent working class neighborhood), run a decent vehicle, eat pretty well and ya know what, with good budgeting you'd have enough left to have that nice cable hook up and high speed DSL deal in your apartment.) essentially, they're offering a lifestyle so much better than that which one can afford on welfare. Hardly anybody has shown any interest. Now granted, being a decent carpenter isn't particularly easy, there's a skill set involved, hell, I'm still learning things every day that I never knew before and I've been working with my hands since I was about 13 years old, but regardless, even if you're awful, it's a foot on the ladder. They offer to train you, that's like a 2 year program, if you're awful, ok fair enough, you're not going to end up with anything at the end of it.. but ya know, 2 years earning decent money should be all you need to get started. 2 Years is long enough to get a GED (for most people) 2 years with a vehicle at your disposal and an internet connection and the money to buy a newspaper is easily enough time to scour the job pages and find out exactly what sort of skills employers want you to have and to develop these skills. In the space of about 2 weeks my Mother, who had scarcely used a computer in her life, learned the whole Microsoft Office package and added that to her Resume because she knew that was something prospective employers would want, If my Ma can learn it, anybody can learn it.
To address your point there pal and conclude, you're right, a large percentage of those on welfare have the ability to do something with themselves, I've described just one of a multitude of plans right here within a few mile radius and yet St. Louis continues to have one of the highest poverty rates in the country. They built a light rail link right in to the heart of the poorest parts of the city, one would assume this would give people the opportunity to expand their job search and achieve more.. all it did was create another dark out of sight place at night for people to get jacked and shot.

However, charity is neither reliable nor universal enough to address permanent systemic poverty affecting tens of millions.  Furthermore, we must not discount the bleak economic prospects in many areas of this country and the recalcitrant psychology of despair that accompanies it.  Even those individuals who seem content living on the public dole are not.  They would be much happier working and contributing than idling and taking.

I would agree that many aspects of poverty are permanent in nature, but that does not mean that the individuals affected are hopelessly relegated to it.  Welfare is a system designed to help you help yourself.  If you choose not to help yourself, then quite frankly, you deserve poverty.

A free society must also allow you to make mistakes and allow you to suffer for them.  Government is not there to protect people from themselves, and in every case where this is attempted, it fails.  See the War on Drugs, for example.

The private sector deliberately engineers what Alan Greenspan called "worker insecurity" into the system.  Also, if a company can save money by shipping jobs out of the country, it will.  Government only engineered the welfare state, which we all agree is an unhappy place.  However, it has been out of the question for government to forbid American companies to outsource jobs to where they can pay the workers the least.  This is where unregulated capitalism leads.  Even if a company's executives have a social conscience, they cannot afford to accrue more costs than their competition.  If company A is allowed to shut its plant in Cleveland and open one in Indonesia where they don't have to obey any environmental regulations and can pay workers two dollars a day, company B cannot stay in Cleveland, cooperate with the EPA, and pay the same workers $15 an hour.  If an elected legislature rules neither company A nor company B can offshore their factories scot-free, then they both stay in Cleveland and can compete within the bounds the legislature has set.  The workers get paid a decent wage, but the executives and shareholders don't make quite as much money.  This is essentially how the American middle class was sustained in the 20th century. 

I could go on about this, but I haven't time at the moment....


I'm all about holding corporations accountable for their actions, and while I entertain the idea of "reciprocal trade policy", I still can't say that preventing companies from outsourcing is going to work.  Outsourcing is an inevitability.

The best we can do in this regard is implement trade policies that reflect what our trade partners are doing.  If a country puts a tariff on our products, we should apply the same tariff to their goods.  If a country bans our products, we should ban theirs.  That is the full extent of what protectionism we should implement.

Correct.

I was having a discussion last night with my buddy's brother (a very surprising conversation, the guy walked in smoking a joint with hair down to his ass and grateful dead tattoos all over his arms and proceeded to give me the most conservative economic diatribe I've ever heard) and we raised a couple of good points that fit well here. A percentage of people on welfare are there simply because they've either got the s*8t end of the stick or they made a couple of bad choices. For almost a year my Father was unemployed, now granted, this was in Margaret Thatchers Britain and the reason he didn't have a job is because his company that he owned went bankrupt because the economy was in such an awful position the service they provided wasn't required. (Shop fitting, racks etc) so we had to go on Welfare (well, the Thatcherite equivalent) for almost a year, because he got dealt the s**t end of the stick. Along the same lines a good friend of mine has a degree in computer science and can't find a job.. at all.. because he made a bad choice, he got his degree at the same time 100,000 other people got computer science degrees, the market is flooded with guys with the same education, thus, he made a bad choice, was it a negligent choice? No, just the wrong one. In both of these cases, the individuals involved got off welfare as soon as possible, found jobs and rejoined the market. Now, there's also a percentage of people who are on welfare, simply because, they have no desire to work, because the system is easy to play.. and please don't argue with that, it really is easy to play if you have half a brain. My current job title is Carpenter (I wont go in to why this is slightly bizarre, but just trust me it is) and I'm currently waiting to join the Carpenter's Union, I'll get a slightly better rate of pay, better hours, better benefits etc, great! I'm looking forward to it. I went down to the Union Hall recently and they're actively trying to recruit carpenter's, providing training and making guarantees on hours and wages that I would have though would generate such enormous interest. Put it this way, they're guaranteeing, whilst you're training that you'll be making.. well, certainly enough to rent a decent apartment in this area (a decent working class neighborhood), run a decent vehicle, eat pretty well and ya know what, with good budgeting you'd have enough left to have that nice cable hook up and high speed DSL deal in your apartment.) essentially, they're offering a lifestyle so much better than that which one can afford on welfare. Hardly anybody has shown any interest. Now granted, being a decent carpenter isn't particularly easy, there's a skill set involved, hell, I'm still learning things every day that I never knew before and I've been working with my hands since I was about 13 years old, but regardless, even if you're awful, it's a foot on the ladder. They offer to train you, that's like a 2 year program, if you're awful, ok fair enough, you're not going to end up with anything at the end of it.. but ya know, 2 years earning decent money should be all you need to get started. 2 Years is long enough to get a GED (for most people) 2 years with a vehicle at your disposal and an internet connection and the money to buy a newspaper is easily enough time to scour the job pages and find out exactly what sort of skills employers want you to have and to develop these skills. In the space of about 2 weeks my Mother, who had scarcely used a computer in her life, learned the whole Microsoft Office package and added that to her Resume because she knew that was something prospective employers would want, If my Ma can learn it, anybody can learn it.
To address your point there pal and conclude, you're right, a large percentage of those on welfare have the ability to do something with themselves, I've described just one of a multitude of plans right here within a few mile radius and yet St. Louis continues to have one of the highest poverty rates in the country. They built a light rail link right in to the heart of the poorest parts of the city, one would assume this would give people the opportunity to expand their job search and achieve more.. all it did was create another dark out of sight place at night for people to get jacked and shot.


Very good points, Davey.  I have a friend that now lives in D.C. who used to live in St. Louis.  He told me all about the dangers of your city.  Granted, D.C. is no picnic either.  Some would say that he jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with that move, but he's paid quite well at Boeing, so I would assume it was worth it.

I get the impression that the main problem St. Louis faces has to do with its inability to annex a lot of the wealthy communities that surround it.  All of the people with money left the city limits, but they still work in the city.  This means they use its amenities while still paying much less in taxes.  Personally, I think cities like St. Louis should be able to override the authority of these suburbs and force them to be annexed.  If the people are abusing the system, they should have to pay the consequences for it.  St. Louis should be able to get the tax money it is rightfully owed by these suburbanite pigs.

I would agree that many aspects of poverty are permanent in nature, but that does not mean that the individuals affected are hopelessly relegated to it.  Welfare is a system designed to help you help yourself.  If you choose not to help yourself, then quite frankly, you deserve poverty.






There are cases where I would say the government has conspired to keep some of the most vulnerable as poor as possible.  My son is autistic.  He will probably never have a great high paying, or even well paying job.  He will be eligible for Social Security benefits when he is 18, and at that time will probably be given some kind of employment.  The catch is that since he will be collecting benefits so he will only be allowed to earn approximately 50 dollars a week. They are basically regulated into poverty.  More than that and they will deduct the money from his pay to keep him on benefits, or drop him off all together.  I believe the ceiling at this moment is about 2000 in assets.  Well past time for a readjustment.  Another catch is that if he inherits any money or property he is bounced off of Social Security until the money is gone, then he can reapply, a real easy thing for any person with any kind of developmental impairment  ::) .  Of course there is a way around called a special needs trust.  I am lucky enough, and involved enough to have found a lawyer who has set him up with one.  That way I can leave him money in a trust that is basically set aside for some extras like vacations and things to make his life more comfortable, and the government cannot look at it in regard to assets.  It is carefully watched, and has some specific parameters, but the problem is many, many people with special needs do not have a clue about them.  They make a bit of extra money or come into funds, are told they are past the monetary maximum, see you later when you are broke.  Another catch is if someone has a special needs trust and they are left money in their own name and not in the name of the trust(the bequest has to say the persons name and "special needs trust" they may have to give up their claim to the bequest in order to retain their benefits.  Isn't that nice.

There are cases where I would say the government has conspired to keep some of the most vulnerable as poor as possible.  My son is autistic.  He will probably never have a great high paying, or even well paying job.  He will be eligible for Social Security benefits when he is 18, and at that time will probably be given some kind of employment.  The catch is that since he will be collecting benefits so he will only be allowed to earn approximately 50 dollars a week. They are basically regulated into poverty.  More than that and they will deduct the money from his pay to keep him on benefits, or drop him off all together.  I believe the ceiling at this moment is about 2000 in assets.  Well past time for a readjustment.  Another catch is that if he inherits any money or property he is bounced off of Social Security until the money is gone, then he can reapply, a real easy thing for any person with any kind of developmental impairment   ::) .  Of course there is a way around called a special needs trust.  I am lucky enough, and involved enough to have found a lawyer who has set him up with one.  That way I can leave him money in a trust that is basically set aside for some extras like vacations and things to make his life more comfortable, and the government cannot look at it in regard to assets.  It is carefully watched, and has some specific parameters, but the problem is many, many people with special needs do not have a clue about them.  They make a bit of extra money or come into funds, are told they are past the monetary maximum, see you later when you are broke.  Another catch is if someone has a special needs trust and they are left money in their own name and not in the name of the trust(the bequest has to say the persons name and "special needs trust" they may have to give up their claim to the bequest in order to retain their benefits.  Isn't that nice.


Well, sorry to hear about your son's situation, but that sounds like a textbook example of why Social Security needs to be ended.  If he was receiving aid from charities, there wouldn't be so many strings attached.

Very good points, Davey.  I have a friend that now lives in D.C. who used to live in St. Louis.  He told me all about the dangers of your city.  Granted, D.C. is no picnic either.  Some would say that he jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with that move, but he's paid quite well at Boeing, so I would assume it was worth it.

I get the impression that the main problem St. Louis faces has to do with its inability to annex a lot of the wealthy communities that surround it.  All of the people with money left the city limits, but they still work in the city.  This means they use its amenities while still paying much less in taxes.  Personally, I think cities like St. Louis should be able to override the authority of these suburbs and force them to be annexed.  If the people are abusing the system, they should have to pay the consequences for it.  St. Louis should be able to get the tax money it is rightfully owed by these suburbanite pigs.



St. Louis shot itself in the foot when it first formed. The city decided it didn't want to be part of the County and thus to this day is a separate entity, unlike most cities which are also part of the county that surrounds them. This coupled with years of over-zealous liberal taxation policies which have driven companies out by the boat load in to the county has served to erode the financial stability of the city and hence create what is now the most dangerous city in the U.S.

There are plenty of wealthy communities surrounding St. Louis, you're correct, the way things are set up does create very misleading statistics, as I said, the city and county are totally separate. Geographically (in principal) and socially. St. Louis county is, I believe, the most affluent part of the Mid-West that isn't in the Chicago metropolitan area. There's a lot of money here and a proportionally large number of business and government interests. But when the statistics are tabulated, because the city is an entirely different entity, the statistics show a slum.. which is what the city is. There are three major businesses that exist in the city that are actually profitable - AT&T, The St. Louis Cardinals and Anheuser Busch breweries. All three are within the city limits although that could change, the area around the brewery is undergoing rapid changes and may well end up not being part of the city proper before too long.

The one thing you've missed though is that most people don't work downtown any more, of course a large number of people still do, but it's still not as large as the number that work in the different satellite business communities around town. GE, Geo-Spatial Planning, Commerce bank and Edward Jones all have large interests in the area and all of them have their own business communities outside of the city.

I would agree that many aspects of poverty are permanent in nature, but that does not mean that the individuals affected are hopelessly relegated to it.  Welfare is a system designed to help you help yourself.  If you choose not to help yourself, then quite frankly, you deserve poverty.

A free society must also allow you to make mistakes and allow you to suffer for them.  Government is not there to protect people from themselves, and in every case where this is attempted, it faills
You're still thinking in terms of what somebody does or doesn't "deserve."
The social costs of these just deserts go far beyond the individual.  That's why I was saying it is counter-productive to moralize about poverty.  I'm sick of this parsing about the deserving and undeserving poor.  If the goal is to reduce poverty and human suffering, then we've got a lot of work to do and finger-pointing isn't going to get it done.

I wish I had a simple, elegant answer, but that's what is so difficult about being on the "liberal" side of things.  There are no absolutes and no easy answers. 

I wish I could recite libertarian dogma as the magic prescription for all that ails society and feel content, but it's just not that simple.
I'm all about holding corporations accountable for their actions, and while I entertain the idea of "reciprocal trade policy", I still can't say that preventing companies from outsourcing is going to work. 

Outsourcing is an inevitability.
Says who?

Well, sorry to hear about your son's situation, but that sounds like a textbook example of why Social Security needs to be ended.  If he was receiving aid from charities, there wouldn't be so many strings attached.


Yes he would.  My son, and the thousands like him would be at the mercy or charities who have much more leeway in whom they will or will not provide funds or assistance.  Social Security is an equal opportunity employer.

St. Louis shot itself in the foot when it first formed. The city decided it didn't want to be part of the County and thus to this day is a separate entity, unlike most cities which are also part of the county that surrounds them. This coupled with years of over-zealous liberal taxation policies which have driven companies out by the boat load in to the county has served to erode the financial stability of the city and hence create what is now the most dangerous city in the U.S.

It sounds like they need an injection of realistic conservative economics.

The one thing you've missed though is that most people don't work downtown any more, of course a large number of people still do, but it's still not as large as the number that work in the different satellite business communities around town. GE, Geo-Spatial Planning, Commerce bank and Edward Jones all have large interests in the area and all of them have their own business communities outside of the city.


Good points...  It sounds like St. Louis is FUBAR.  But again, with the right pro-business leadership, they may yet recover.

You're still thinking in terms of what somebody does or doesn't "deserve."
The social costs of these just deserts go far beyond the individual.  That's why I was saying it is counter-productive to moralize about poverty.  I'm sick of this parsing about the deserving and undeserving poor.  If the goal is to reduce poverty and human suffering, then we've got a lot of work to do and finger-pointing isn't going to get it done.

True, but handouts aren't going to either...

I wish I had a simple, elegant answer, but that's what is so difficult about being on the "liberal" side of things.  There are no absolutes and no easy answers.

Trust me...  I'm no absolutist, but I'm not a relativist either.  I suppose I'm more on the "classical" liberal side of things (laissez-faire economics), but I understand that most policies must be flexible enough to adapt to multiple situations.

I wish I could recite libertarian dogma as the magic prescription for all that ails society and feel content, but it's just not that simple.
I'm all about holding corporations accountable for their actions, and while I entertain the idea of "reciprocal trade policy", I still can't say that preventing companies from outsourcing is going to work. 

I'm not a pie-in-the-sky libertarian type -- I'm more a cynical libertarian type.  I'm just trying to minimize the government's influence, but I realize the government sometimes has to act as a balance against corporate power.

Says who?

Adam Smith.  As long as labor exists in this world that is cheaper than ours, we will always have to deal with outsourcing.  Instead of trying to prevent it, why not just better educate our people, so that they can get better jobs -- most of which will not have to compete with Third World Countries because of the skill level involved?

Oh, this is risible.

If the far-right got in there and "ended" social security, human suffering would skyrocket in this country.  You'd see hunger and homeless, particularly among the elderly, like never before.

The very idea is misanthropic.

Oh, this is risible.

If the far-right got in there and "ended" social security, human suffering would skyrocket in this country.  You'd see hunger and homeless, particularly among the elderly, like never before.

The very idea is misanthropic.


Well, I won't deny that I have a misanthropic side to me, but the question remains: the current system isn't working, so how do you improve it without taking a more privatized approach?

Well, I won't deny that I have a misanthropic side to me, but the question remains: the current system isn't working, so how do you improve it without taking a more privatized approach?


A few tax reforms would ensure its solvency for the next 100 years.

A few tax reforms would ensure its solvency for the next 100 years.


The best reforms I've heard have to do with appreciation.  This is why I favor the private investment angle.  If you can invest your own SS funds into the mutual fund of your choice, you control your own fate (for the most part).  Sure, the market is obviously a volatile place, but a little knowledge (and admittedly, some luck) will have you accumulating funds -- rather than watching the current system make them lose value in reference to inflation.

I shall just respond to this discussion with this particularly cogent observation...the vast majority of those who control the powers of the purse in America are the most corrupt bunch of gangsters to ever gain control of a major empire in today's world. >:(

peace...Lee 

Good points...  It sounds like St. Louis is FUBAR.  But again, with the right pro-business leadership, they may yet recover.


In theory, but it'll never happen, the city is made up of slums.. poor slums.. who vote democratic every election and elect very liberal mayors who go on to implement the same failed policies.

In theory, but it'll never happen, the city is made up of slums.. poor slums.. who vote democratic every election and elect very liberal mayors who go on to implement the same failed policies.


Most areas of most cities worldwide are slums.  In cities such as Manila and Mexico City you've got thousands and thousands of people subsiding from the city dumps. 

What percentage of "slum dwellers" actually vote at all? 

St. Louis used to be a much bigger city.  The town lost a quarter million people after WWII. 

Here is a little St. Louis slum history set to the music of Philip Glass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4qxk7KhnHs

I shall just respond to this discussion with this particularly cogent observation...the vast majority of those who control the powers of the purse in America are the most corrupt bunch of gangsters to ever gain control of a major empire in today's world. >:(

peace...Lee 


You are correct, V... I mean, Lee...  ;)

Granted, the same could easily be said of China and Russia.

The best reforms I've heard have to do with appreciation.  This is why I favor the private investment angle.  If you can invest your own SS funds into the mutual fund of your choice, you control your own fate (for the most part).  Sure, the market is obviously a volatile place, but a little knowledge (and admittedly, some luck) will have you accumulating funds -- rather than watching the current system make them lose value in reference to inflation.


Nooooo.  The problem is there mutual funds can go bust, just like Enron, and unsophisticated people can be duped into investments that will leave them without anything.  We would have the subprime market with people retirement, and a complicit government being paid by lobbyists to deny, deny, deny. Social Security can be managed better, like not raiding it to pay for wars then saying it is a failure, but to entirely privatize it would let the wolves into the hen house.

What the heck?  19th century?  What does it matter what year it is?  And how are charities irrational?  Many people are helped in this country and around the world every year through private donations.


I didn't say it was irrational, it's just not a cure all.  Back in the 19th centuries charities were suppose to take care of the poor.  They couldn't do it all then, what makes you so sure they can do it all now?  (pardon the reference to history, it's a weakness)

I shall just respond to this discussion with this particularly cogent observation...the vast majority of those who control the powers of the purse in America are the most corrupt bunch of gangsters to ever gain control of a major empire in today's world. >:(

peace...Lee 

+1 Karma 4U!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif



Granted, the same could easily be said of China and Russia.

Then we're in good company, aren't we?  Just dandy!


unsophisticated people can be duped into investments that will leave them without anything. 

Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth!  Say, I've got some scenic beachfront property in Florida, and you can have it for a song.  I'll send you a brochure, you're going to love it down there, palm trees, white sands, and turquoise ocean as far as the eye can see!
;)

Nooooo.  The problem is there mutual funds can go bust, just like Enron, and unsophisticated people can be duped into investments that will leave them without anything.  We would have the subprime market with people retirement, and a complicit government being paid by lobbyists to deny, deny, deny. Social Security can be managed better, like not raiding it to pay for wars then saying it is a failure, but to entirely privatize it would let the wolves into the hen house.


I see what you mean, but to me, the difference is that the current system guarantees a loss of funds, whereas the market presents an opportunity to increase them.  I'd like Social Security to get phased out altogether, since I see retirement as a personal responsibility -- not a government one.  However, the next best thing is to privatize it.

What percentage of "slum dwellers" actually vote at all? 


A reasonably high percentage here actually. Let me see if I can't find the article the Post Dispatch carried, the percentage of people that came out to vote in the city was higher than the percentage that voted in state elections.

A reasonably high percentage here actually. Let me see if I can't find the article the Post Dispatch carried, the percentage of people that came out to vote in the city was higher than the percentage that voted in state elections.

Then more power to 'em they need it.

David Horowitz likes to say the Democrats are responsible for the plight of the inner cities because the Democrats control them.  There's some truth to that.  I just wonder if the Republicans would do any better for them.  Probably not....though, sorry to say, they probably couldn't do much worse.
::)

I see what you mean, but to me, the difference is that the current system guarantees a loss of funds, whereas the market presents an opportunity to increase them.  I'd like Social Security to get phased out altogether, since I see retirement as a personal responsibility -- not a government one.  However, the next best thing is to privatize it.


Social Security is a marvelous program, if you see what happened before social security.  The problem, as I see it, is that people who cannot afford to supplement their retirement with mutual funds/Iras or other savings, end up with just the social security.  It also seems to me that a lot of the people looking to dismantle the system are the ones who can afford to supplement their retirement, and are sophisticated enough to have at least a working knowledge of how investments work.  Privatizing Social Security and personal responsibility for the investments is one thing for the financially savvey, but would open the door for the most vulnerable to end up destitute. 

Then more power to 'em they need it.

David Horowitz likes to say the Democrats are responsible for the plight of the inner cities because the Democrats control them.  There's some truth to that.  I just wonder if the Republicans would do any better for them.  Probably not....though, sorry to say, they probably couldn't do much worse.
::)


You're probably right there.

As long as big business seeks to make higher and higher profits they will move in or out of the cities whenever it is convenient.
I think a decade or so of Conservative economic policy here in St. Louis would attract businesses back to the city with tax breaks for large corporations.. but.. it wouldn't attract people back and as such wouldn't do anything to help the slum situation as no small businesses (grocery stores, dry cleaners etc) would move back because the population base would still be out in the suburbs and satellite communities. Essentially it's a matter of rock and a hard place.

Nooooo.  The problem is there mutual funds can go bust, just like Enron, and unsophisticated people can be duped into investments that will leave them without anything.  We would have the subprime market with people retirement, and a complicit government being paid by lobbyists to deny, deny, deny. Social Security can be managed better, like not raiding it to pay for wars then saying it is a failure, but to entirely privatize it would let the wolves into the hen house.


/slaps Danoota&Me across the face with a trout.

If I have $1000 under management, I'm free to not invest it in Enron.  Or subprime mortgages.  Etc. 

If I have $1000 taken and spent on current retirees (pyramid scheme)...

OK, let's ignore the pyramid scheme.  Let's indulge in the fantasy that Social Security represents $1000 held in my name.  Which it doesn't, according to the very statement that the Social Security Administration sends you every year.  Let's pretend it's a real "trust fund" with real assets.

...then if I have $1000 taken from me and "invested" in your "trust fund", I still don't have the freedom not to have it raided to pay for failed wars.

The troutslap wasn't for the notion that there's market risk.  If it was your money, you'd still be free to invest it in US Treasuries (if you wanted the Government to be able to use the money now in exchange for its promise to pay you back later), or non-US Treasuries, or hunks of inert shiny yellow metal, or stock in Enron (which went to zero), or stock in Microsoft (which has gone nowhere lately), or stock in Apple or Google (which has gone up 500% over the past few years). 

The troutslap was for the fact that the only "money that can be spent on wars" is the money that you don't have control over.  The longer you support raising Social Security taxes (which ultimately go into the same general revenue stream as all your other faxes) and increased Social Security payouts (which ultimately get paid out of the same general expenditure stream as all the defense contracts), the more you want to take "money that's yours" (which you can invest in anything from iPods to tulip bulbs) and turn it into "money that's not yours" (which is invested in whatever the best lobbyists can convince the dumbest politicians to spend it on, which ranges from $2000 spinnin' rims for people flooded out in Katrina, to 2000-lb bombs to be dropped on the surviving Iraqis).

How about we split Social Security into its two logical parts, neither of which has anything to do with each other, and treat the two programmes separately:

1) A supplemental insurance programme, similar to unemployment insurance, to cover your expected income if you malfunction during your career and are unable to care for yourself during working age.  This programme can be continued -- but there shall be no separate tax collected for it, and there shall be no defined benefit.  It's welfare.  Let's admit that welfare serves a useful purpose, but let's call it "welfare", and let's pay for it accordingly.  It's a government expense, it's paid out of the "non-discretionary" portion of the budget, and it's paid for by "general revenue".  No more 6.2% from employers and 6.2% for employees.  Fund it out of income tax, the same way we do AFDC and other welfare programmes.

2) A retirement programme, which is currently operated as a pyramid scheme.  It should be immediately abolished.  Or at least made opt-in.  You want to give 6.2% of your money to the government (plus charge your employer 6.2% of your salary), go for it.  Pays your money, takes your chances.  The rest of us will take our 6.2% (and save our employers 6.2%) and stick it in the bank, in tulip bulbs, Enron stock, or defense contractor stock.  And we'll take our chances.

OK, rant over.

Bottom line:  If you don't want the government to spend "your retirement savings" on wars, don't let them have the money in the first place.  Once upon a time (google the Bugs Bunny WW2 cartoon "Any Bonds Today?") the government had to convince people to invest in its wars, rather than simply coerce them into doing so.  Was that such a bad time?

Bottom line:  If you don't want the government to spend "your retirement savings" on wars, don't let them have the money in the first place.  Once upon a time (google the Bugs Bunny WW2 cartoon "Any Bonds Today?") the government had to convince people to invest in its wars, rather than simply coerce them into doing so.  Was that such a bad time?

Well, if your entrails are splattered six ways from Sunday all over the sands of Iwo Jima, yeah, it was a pretty bad time for you!  I'm not going to get all misty-eyed and glory glory hallelujah about it, just ask that kid a second before the lights go out, he'll say, "this sucks more than anything has ever sucked before!"

But we couldn't pack it in and let Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo run the world, so we did what we had to do.  So did Prescott Bush, he invested heavily in the Third Reich!
:D

Anyway, when you saw that Bugs war bonds cartoon in '42, you and your wife walked to the theater because gas was rationed.  Roosevelt message to the nation wasn't "Go shopping!"


Little differences there.

/slaps Danoota&Me across the face with a trout.

If I have $1000 under management, I'm free to not invest it in Enron.  Or subprime mortgages.  Etc. 

If I have $1000 taken and spent on current retirees (pyramid scheme)...

OK, let's ignore the pyramid scheme.  Let's indulge in the fantasy that Social Security represents $1000 held in my name.  Which it doesn't, according to the very statement that the Social Security Administration sends you every year.  Let's pretend it's a real "trust fund" with real assets.

...then if I have $1000 taken from me and "invested" in your "trust fund", I still don't have the freedom not to have it raided to pay for failed wars.

The troutslap wasn't for the notion that there's market risk.  If it was your money, you'd still be free to invest it in US Treasuries (if you wanted the Government to be able to use the money now in exchange for its promise to pay you back later), or non-US Treasuries, or hunks of inert shiny yellow metal, or stock in Enron (which went to zero), or stock in Microsoft (which has gone nowhere lately), or stock in Apple or Google (which has gone up 500% over the past few years). 

The troutslap was for the fact that the only "money that can be spent on wars" is the money that you don't have control over.  The longer you support raising Social Security taxes (which ultimately go into the same general revenue stream as all your other faxes) and increased Social Security payouts (which ultimately get paid out of the same general expenditure stream as all the defense contracts), the more you want to take "money that's yours" (which you can invest in anything from iPods to tulip bulbs) and turn it into "money that's not yours" (which is invested in whatever the best lobbyists can convince the dumbest politicians to spend it on, which ranges from $2000 spinnin' rims for people flooded out in Katrina, to 2000-lb bombs to be dropped on the surviving Iraqis).

How about we split Social Security into its two logical parts, neither of which has anything to do with each other, and treat the two programmes separately:

1) A supplemental insurance programme, similar to unemployment insurance, to cover your expected income if you malfunction during your career and are unable to care for yourself during working age.  This programme can be continued -- but there shall be no separate tax collected for it, and there shall be no defined benefit.  It's welfare.  Let's admit that welfare serves a useful purpose, but let's call it "welfare", and let's pay for it accordingly.  It's a government expense, it's paid out of the "non-discretionary" portion of the budget, and it's paid for by "general revenue".  No more 6.2% from employers and 6.2% for employees.  Fund it out of income tax, the same way we do AFDC and other welfare programmes.

2) A retirement programme, which is currently operated as a pyramid scheme.  It should be immediately abolished.  Or at least made opt-in.  You want to give 6.2% of your money to the government (plus charge your employer 6.2% of your salary), go for it.  Pays your money, takes your chances.  The rest of us will take our 6.2% (and save our employers 6.2%) and stick it in the bank, in tulip bulbs, Enron stock, or defense contractor stock.  And we'll take our chances.

OK, rant over.

Bottom line:  If you don't want the government to spend "your retirement savings" on wars, don't let them have the money in the first place.  Once upon a time (google the Bugs Bunny WW2 cartoon "Any Bonds Today?") the government had to convince people to invest in its wars, rather than simply coerce them into doing so.  Was that such a bad time?


*oohhh ouch womanbeaterwomanbeater  *

What has to be done is correct the management.  Up until now it has been managed poorly, but it is not dead yet.  In the past it was, and still is to the sophisticated parasite, easy to circumvent paying into the social security system.  I know a few who have done it, then when they found themselves older and in a bind have pleaded their case and were able to collect benefits.  Happens more than anyone would like to admit.  That is what will happen.  At a young age, some will decide that they want their money, they know what is best and will take their chances, then when they are older and the lights come on they will plead their case and the people who are paying their taxes, and who have stayed in the system will be paying for them. Like it or not, we as a country will not say no to older people in desperate straights, and there will be many of those.

In order to keep the government from raiding social security there has to be a lock box situation.  Social Security funds should be sacrosanct.  I can't touch my social security, ira's, pension, retirement mutual funds until I am at least 62, the government shouldn't be allowed to either.  There is also the issue of Social Security being more than a retirement vehicle.  It also goes toward helping people with disablilities and children whose parents have died.  

Fund social security out of income taxes.  Oh, yeah, I can hear the hue and cry now.  I could actually go for that, as long as it isn't earned income.  I think people who go out and actually work for a living have been getting shafted too long, earning(in real terms) less, getting less, and paying more.  Maybe it can be paid by taxes on what I call "duff earnings", earnings of people who sit on their duff and make more money in a day than I do in a year without ever getting off of the couch.

Social Security is a marvelous program, if you see what happened before social security.  The problem, as I see it, is that people who cannot afford to supplement their retirement with mutual funds/Iras or other savings, end up with just the social security.  It also seems to me that a lot of the people looking to dismantle the system are the ones who can afford to supplement their retirement, and are sophisticated enough to have at least a working knowledge of how investments work.  Privatizing Social Security and personal responsibility for the investments is one thing for the financially savvey, but would open the door for the most vulnerable to end up destitute. 


Very true... but I think educating people more about finances is a better idea than trying to provide all of them with a government-based retirement program.  It's kind of the "teach a man to fish" idea -- knowledge is infinitely better than handouts.

Despite my Libertarian leanings, I'd much rather socialize education than retirement.

And for those who do end up desperate from bad investments, we do have a welfare program that can provide temporary help.

It's kind of the "teach a man to fish" idea -- knowledge is infinitely better than handouts.


The GOP philosphy:

Give a man a fish and he'll eat today.
Teach a man to fish...
and then pump the river full of industrial toxins and kill all the fish!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/freak6.gif

Very true... but I think educating people more about finances is a better idea than trying to provide all of them with a government-based retirement program.  It's kind of the "teach a man to fish" idea -- knowledge is infinitely better than handouts.


Which is all well and good, but it still doesn't make any difference. As I've pointed out before, if one invests in private enterprise there is always a risk involved, even iof you only invest in conservative enterprises with stable track records there's still a good chance that things could go tits up and you lose it all, so.. you invest in government bonds.. which brings us full circle because that's what social security is.

Danoota makes a fine point, the problem isn't the concept it's the implementation.

The GOP philosphy:

Give a man a fish and he'll eat today.
Teach a man to fish...
and then pump the river full of industrial toxins and kill all the fish!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/freak6.gif


Hey...  I can't argue with that.  Environmental policy is one issue I'm very liberal on, despite the fact that it's called "conservation."

Which is all well and good, but it still doesn't make any difference. As I've pointed out before, if one invests in private enterprise there is always a risk involved, even iof you only invest in conservative enterprises with stable track records there's still a good chance that things could go tits up and you lose it all, so.. you invest in government bonds.. which brings us full circle because that's what social security is.

Danoota makes a fine point, the problem isn't the concept it's the implementation.


The problem I have with this idea is that it makes people perpetually tied to the government.  I'd rather at least have a choice to invest in government bonds rather than have the government force me to do it by deducting money from my paycheck automatically.

The problem I have with this idea is that it makes people perpetually tied to the government.  I'd rather at least have a choice to invest in government bonds rather than have the government force me to do it by deducting money from my paycheck automatically.


If they put the biweekly SS money back in my paycheck, I'd just spend it on beer, scratch tickets, and nudie mags...but what else do you really need in your old age?
:-\\

The problem I have with this idea is that it makes people perpetually tied to the government.  I'd rather at least have a choice to invest in government bonds rather than have the government force me to do it by deducting money from my paycheck automatically.


And I have no issue with SS payments being optional, but.. the issue there is (and once again Danoota mentioned it) what happens when you f**k up your investments and come crawling to the government, should they pay for you even though you didn't contribute to the system?

And I have no issue with SS payments being optional, but.. the issue there is (and once again Danoota mentioned it) what happens when you f**k up your investments and come crawling to the government, should they pay for you even though you didn't contribute to the system?


Good point.  Pure Libertarians use a similar argument when defending their stance against welfare.  Why should the more successful have the burden of funding the less?

The way I see it, welfare is an inevitability and a good security policy against massive crime waves and class wars.  I don't see SS in the same light, because, more often than not, its funds just get whisked away toward pet projects.

For this reason, I prefer the welfare approach of aiding those without retirement with welfare funds.  While on the system, they should begin looking for help from their family or from charity, because we have to eventually remove them from government funds one way or another.

Good point.  Pure Libertarians use a similar argument when defending their stance against welfare.  Why should the more successful have the burden of funding the less?

The way I see it, welfare is an inevitability and a good security policy against massive crime waves and class wars.  I don't see SS in the same light, because, more often than not, its funds just get whisked away toward pet projects.

For this reason, I prefer the welfare approach of aiding those without retirement with welfare funds.  While on the system, they should begin looking for help from their family or from charity, because we have to eventually remove them from government funds one way or another.


I can see the logic behind it, why should the more successful be burdened with those who are less fortunate and to an extent I agree, that being said, with wealth comes responsibility, wealth gives you more of a say, that's a basic fact no matter who you ask, with that increased say I have no issue with increasing the basic rate on what you pay to the government.

Now, in regard to removing them from government funding, I disagree. Through the history of mankind, governments have looked after the sick and elderly, why do we feel the need to be any different? The members of society that can't help themselves are still members of society, they're no longer able bodied (for the most part) and as such require assistance, those on welfare are a different matter, the vast majority are able bodied and either can't find work or choose not to work - Thus, my support for public work projects.

I can see the logic behind it, why should the more successful be burdened with those who are less fortunate and to an extent I agree, that being said, with wealth comes responsibility, wealth gives you more of a say, that's a basic fact no matter who you ask, with that increased say I have no issue with increasing the basic rate on what you pay to the government.

I actually agree with you here, which is why I'm an adamant opponent of the so-called "Fair Tax."

Now, in regard to removing them from government funding, I disagree. Through the history of mankind, governments have looked after the sick and elderly, why do we feel the need to be any different? The members of society that can't help themselves are still members of society, they're no longer able bodied (for the most part) and as such require assistance, those on welfare are a different matter, the vast majority are able bodied and either can't find work or choose not to work - Thus, my support for public work projects.


Perhaps, but actually, you could say that governmental aid to the sick and poor is a relatively recent thing.  When you look at it in the context of the world as a whole today even, the First World is mostly unique in its care for the less fortunate.  Poorer nations mostly leave aid up to charity and family, and most of even the wealthiest societies throughout the world did so as little as 100 years ago.

Now, I'm not saying that I want us to go back to those days.  I don't think any rational person can look at the times before the income tax and say, "Oh those were grand.  Spanish flu and lynchings were such causes for rejoice."

What I'm aiming for is a better managed system that puts most responsibilities on local government rather than the feds.  D.C. is an exceptionally corrupt place, and while local governments have plenty of problems, they are easier to deal with on a personal level.  The federal government is so huge that people like you and me are powerless to change it.

My brother happens to be a big fan of public works projects, but my argument has always been that, if any are to be implemented, they should be managed by state governments, not the feds.

I actually agree with you here, which is why I'm an adamant opponent of the so-called "Fair Tax."

Perhaps, but actually, you could say that governmental aid to the sick and poor is a relatively recent thing.  When you look at it in the context of the world as a whole today even, the First World is mostly unique in its care for the less fortunate.  Poorer nations mostly leave aid up to charity and family, and most of even the wealthiest societies throughout the world did so as little as 100 years ago.

Now, I'm not saying that I want us to go back to those days.  I don't think any rational person can look at the times before the income tax and say, "Oh those were grand.  Spanish flu and lynchings were such causes for rejoice."

What I'm aiming for is a better managed system that puts most responsibilities on local government rather than the feds.  D.C. is an exceptionally corrupt place, and while local governments have plenty of problems, they are easier to deal with on a personal level.  The federal government is so huge that people like you and me are powerless to change it.

My brother happens to be a big fan of public works projects, but my argument has always been that, if any are to be implemented, they should be managed by state governments, not the feds.


Higher levels of state intervention as opposed to federal intervention would be beneficial I think, but I also think there'd need to be certain guidelines set up at a federal level, otherwise everybody would move to Massachusetts when they turned 65.

Higher levels of state intervention as opposed to federal intervention would be beneficial I think, but I also think there'd need to be certain guidelines set up at a federal level, otherwise everybody would move to Massachusetts when they turned 65.


LOL...  Good point...  but if the current situation is any indication, I think Florida would have more to worry about....

LOL...  Good point...  but if the current situation is any indication, I think Florida would have more to worry about....


Nah, Florida is full of the one's who owned houses in NYC, sold em and live off the profit.

My brother happens to be a big fan of public works projects, but my argument has always been that, if any are to be implemented, they should be managed by state governments, not the feds.




Managed by the states, but still with some federal oversight.  All governments are notoriously corrupt.  I didn't like seeing the Big Dig being handed over to Massachusetts.  The federal government gave us the money and disappeared and didn't come back until serious fiscal damage had been done.

Managed by the states, but still with some federal oversight.  All governments are notoriously corrupt.  I didn't like seeing the Big Dig being handed over to Massachusetts.  The federal government gave us the money and disappeared and didn't come back until serious fiscal damage had been done.


Well, there's the problem.  The funding was federal.  If the state had to pony up the cash itself, it would have to decide how to raise the funds necessary.  They'd be more likely to handle the funds responsibly if the people of Massachusetts more directly had to pay into this project, because I would assume the people of Massachusetts would take it more personally if specifically their own tax money was mismanaged.  When the funds are federal, there is more of a dissociation of abuse, because the cost is spread throughout the whole country.

Basically, I support more localized government and localized funding for government projects.