Your opinion: Obvious or not obvious?


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not following you. At what point are people held accountable for multiple poor decisions and required to actually help themselves?

The key disagreement that we seem to run into in all of these threads is the reason why poor people are poor. On the one hand, we have those who believe that poor people are poor because of their environment, social status, or other factors mostly beyond their control. On the other hand, there are those who believe poor people are poor because they have intentionally made bad decisions, harmed themselves, are un-intelligent, or other factors purposely chosen by the person. Obviously there's some combination of the two in play, but the disagreement is where that line is drawn. How much is it somebody's fault that they're poor?

The answer to "well, what do we do to eradicate poverty?" depends on the answer to the previous question. The first side would advocate for social assistance and aid unconditionally, the other would advocate for education but no aid. This argument, from an economic standpoint, is very old (think Malthus v. Jones) and there's probably no clear answer. What I think we must not lose focus on is that poor people are still people, and with anything that affects welfare we must keep a humanitarian eye to the problem. Thus, my previous reply was me picturing that classic picture that is often in our churches of someone climbing a stairway, both being helped by someone and helping someone else. We're not going to permanently lift anyone out of poverty by either dragging people up the stairs or giving stern looks to people struggling to climb the stairs and criticising them for not making progress as fast as normal people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key disagreement that we seem to run into in all of these threads is the reason why poor people are poor. On the one hand, we have those who believe that poor people are poor because of their environment, social status, or other factors mostly beyond their control. On the other hand, there are those who believe poor people are poor because they have intentionally made bad decisions, harmed themselves, are un-intelligent, or other factors purposely chosen by the person. Obviously there's some combination of the two in play, but the disagreement is where that line is drawn. How much is it somebody's fault that they're poor?

Why a disagreement? Wouldn't you agree that both reasons explain why people are poor. The disagreement is how best to help the poor and when do we as a society begin to require accountability for assistance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not following you. At what point are people held accountable for multiple poor decisions and required to actually help themselves?

If I may interject... If I'm not mistaken, Obama and a lot of the left-leaning public, do not tie multiple poor decisions to poverty. Obama believes that poverty is a product of an unfair disadvantage in certain sectors of society. Poor people who grow up in inner cities, for example, are victims of circumstance and not necessarily poor decisions.

Of course, a lot of people disagree with this outlook.

Edit: Little explained it better.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may interject... If I'm not mistaken, Obama and a lot of the left-leaning public, do not tie multiple poor decisions to poverty. Obama believes that poverty is a product of an unfair disadvantage in certain sectors of society. Poor people who grow up in inner cities, for example, are victims of circumstance and not necessarily poor decisions.

Of course, a lot of people disagree with this outlook.

I don't disagree with that view point, but, it is dishonest to suggest that it fully explains poverty. Surely out of wed lock birth, addiction, disillusion of the family unit all play a major role and these problems are multi-generational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democrats are not demanding more pay for less work. It is touting the actions of a democrat Congress in passing the Lily Ledbetter law - equal pay for equal work.

The democratic rhetoric went far beyond Lily Ledbetter, which itself boiled down to an extension of a statute of limitations for civil litigation under costing law.

Democrats who carp on income inequality between males and females while ignoring the fact that anyone who takes repeated, lengthy leaves from work for family reasons is going to suffer professionally, are demanding more pay for less work (or at least, experience).

If you think of all things this way, then you'll have to call out the Republican position of building naval ships as redistributing wealth to military contractors. It just doesn't work that way.

Oh, I have no doubt that civilian government contracts are rife with graft and often have a healthy opponent of regional vote-buying. Though I think there's a difference between buying a product that fills a current need versus just throwing money at something purely for the sake of social engineering or some nebulous hope of economic benefit.

You're looking at it from the Republican ideology. The Democrat ideology is Keynesian in nature in which the way to transition out of the status quo is to provide a government injection of investment to new technology.

.

Ideology, or pretext? Authoritarianism, love of power, and general busybodiness predates Keynesianism. So then we get into the chicken-egg scenario of whether Dems love big government because it allows them to enact Keynesianism, or whether they love Keynes because he justifies big government to which they naturally gravitate.

Basically, for green energy to succeed (we ALL want green energy to succeed),

And yet the White House permitted Solyndra, unlike GM, to go belly-up.

. . . it will have to gain enough momentum to compete with the status quo, otherwise, change through capitalism will not kick in until it becomes too painful for Americans to stay with the status quo, at which time, we wouldnt be prepared to do a peaceful transition.

America has transitioned out of out-dated technologies before. The eclipse of the horse and buggy didn't cause widespread chaos.

This is not a redistribution because everybody benefits from the new technology.

Everyone owns the patents? Everyone gets stock in the new corporations hat use the technology? How about the ventures that fail?

Moreover, the line of argument assumes that no other means besides government investment can bring the technology to pass. That may be true in low-demand-yet-vital product research - medical research, for example. But generally, common sense says that if someone's not investing in a technology it's because they don't foresee it becoming profitable - and if they don't foresee it being profitable, it's because they don't think anyone will want the technology.

You can disagree with the ideology, sticking with capitalism to usher in the needed change, but you can't really demonize the different ideology because, it's like Assemblies of God demonizing Mormons... Its idiotic because they both truly believe in their idea of what constitutes salvation.

The difference, of course, being that the Mormons don't believe they have a right to collect tithing from the Assemblies of God. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world makes you think she does not practice what she preaches? Or do you just assume socialists are liars?

Talisyn lives as if the United Order was in effect now. She, and her siblings, take care of each other. I could not be prouder.

Problem is that Talisyn/sibings can not take care of all that need help. Our country could take care of the poor and help them get out of that hole but we prefer to place labels on people, then justify our lack of caring and doing.

You are quickly becoming one of my favourites here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, you made a claim about socialism which I countered with an actual example. Does the size matter?

Hubert, yes, the size matters. A community of 900 is not going to put you in jail for refusing to participate in their socialism. They might exclude you, but they won't lock you up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democratic rhetoric went far beyond Lily Ledbetter, which itself boiled down to an extension of a statute of limitations for civil litigation under costing law.

Democrats who carp on income inequality between males and females while ignoring the fact that anyone who takes repeated, lengthy leaves from work for family reasons is going to suffer professionally, are demanding more pay for less work (or at least, experience).

Not true. The over-reach is in their use of the 78%(?) pay difference and tie it to Lily Ledbetter to give the impression that 78% pay difference is due to Lily Ledbetter cases. Like this never happens in the right... we are very aware of the 47% comment.

But the democrat platform merely states that Lilly Ledbetter-type inequality is going to be eradicated. It does not say, for any of you women who make only 78% of the male counterpart because you took more days off, we're going to give you money under a new-fangled Equal Pay Law.

Oh, I have no doubt that civilian government contracts are rife with graft and often have a healthy opponent of regional vote-buying. Though I think there's a difference between buying a product that fills a current need versus just throwing money at something purely for the sake of social engineering or some nebulous hope of economic benefit.

My uncle used to say, "that guy is a bridge-maker"... this means he's the type of politician to say, "I will build a bridge. It will fill the current need for roads and bridges that is vital to our economy. It will provide hundreds of jobs. And if there's no river to build that bridge over, I'll build that river too!".

So, yeah, I'm not saying we don't need naval ships. All I'm saying is - there's people who believe we don't need as many naval ships as the right promised. That's just as bad as social engineering.

Ideology, or pretext? Authoritarianism, love of power, and general busybodiness predates Keynesianism. So then we get into the chicken-egg scenario of whether Dems love big government because it allows them to enact Keynesianism, or whether they love Keynes because he justifies big government to which they naturally gravitate.

Does it matter? They have an ideology. It is different from yours (and mine, even). It doesn't matter how they enact it - Keynesian economics is a product of the liberal ideology. And ideology is merely a bunch of ideas. Keynesian economics put it into an actionable form.

To call liberalism authoritarianism, love of power, and general busybodiness is an injustice. Fact is, in America, both sides of the aisle rely on a majority vote to feed their families. They all want to keep their jobs. If you call that love of power then it's true on both sides.

America has transitioned out of out-dated technologies before. The eclipse of the horse and buggy didn't cause widespread chaos.

The difference is we don't import horse and buggies from warlords. The pain of riding horse and buggies was in our butts. So, given the option of a car that is easier on the butt, cars win easily. And, since the pain in the butt is something people can choose to continue forever without duress, then the transition is a peaceful one.

Try that with energy. First of all - it's not an unlimited resource that you can just continue forever without duress. Second of all - it's a noose around your neck that some idiot from the Middle East or Venezuela can put duress just out on a whim. It's a problem that requires a solution - not a horse and buggy that is not causing problems that require a solution. So, as a solution you got two alternatives - go green or remain with the status quo. Everybody left or right agrees in going green. So the only difference is on how to get there.

Everyone owns the patents? Everyone gets stock in the new corporations hat use the technology? How about the ventures that fail?

JAG, this is getting tiresome. Are you trying to tell me that the only people that benefit from green energy is the patent owners and the stock holders?

What about the ventures that fail? It's a venture - failure is a possible outcome.

Moreover, the line of argument assumes that no other means besides government investment can bring the technology to pass. That may be true in low-demand-yet-vital product research - medical research, for example. But generally, common sense says that if someone's not investing in a technology it's because they don't foresee it becoming profitable - and if they don't foresee it being profitable, it's because they don't think anyone will want the technology.

There you have it. Energy is on the same ball park as medical research - it is vital to American life. And THAT's exactly why the left believes "no other means besides government investment can bring the technology to pass". Because, it is not profitable against oil as its competition. It's not a matter of "wanting" the technology. Faced with a Middle East crisis and a resource depletion of fossil fuel - you may not have a choice in the matter. If you notice, any oil drilling operation has a lifetime. Every Texan knows this. Therefore, oil is only a temporary measure. The end, is of course, not in our lifetimes, but the way energy demand is skyrocketing, it is possible that our grandchildren will see it in their lifetimes. So, with the current wars putting instability to American industry, it is perfectly reasonable to stop kicking the can down the road and do something about it now.

Nobody is talking about this, but Siemens is neck deep in a successful green energy project. They have a warehouse in Charlotte powered by it. Yes, they are one of the people that got Keynesian money.

The difference, of course, being that the Mormons don't believe they have a right to collect tithing from the Assemblies of God. ;)

Touche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that view point, but, it is dishonest to suggest that it fully explains poverty. Surely out of wed lock birth, addiction, disillusion of the family unit all play a major role and these problems are multi-generational.

Little did not generalize the cause of poverty. You stated a reason - poor choices - he (and I) countered with, that's not the only reason, here's why.

But, then I think Little's "how far you can reach" comment includes all causes of poverty. So, yes, how far can you reach if your situation is a product of poor choices... but then, you can come back with - not moving out of the inner city is considered a poor choice... and the rabbit continues down the hole.

So, it's really not about how far you can reach... you should reach as far as you can go, for any poverty reason. It's about HOW you reach that should be the issue on the table.

I'll give you an example: Jefferson County, Missouri (I think I got that county name right) has a ginormous number of meth addicts. Poor choices. Hands down. So, do you just let them rot in their own meth labs or should the county do something about it? The county decided to reach... and reach far. The county provided free rehabilitation as part of the sentence for illegal use of meth. The cost of the rehab is ginormous. But, putting these people back to work instead of stay in jail made them taxable earners... so, it's not so bad. And crime rate goes down keeping whatever decent citizens they have in the county, paying taxes. Okay, I'm not including the "it's just what a decent society would do" reasoning into this. Just merely the economic standpoint of the situation.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well bobby boy was basically listing tragic events and a certain individual in history that had negative consequences. He was not saying President Obama is the next hitler, but he was saying Obama may be a negative player for our time. We have yet to see these next four years. He did not rush into saying Obama is the Anti-christ, but you can see that hes worried about the things he may do. I personally believe Romney and Obama were not what this nation needed. They both fail on the way I see foreign policy should be done.

One is big goverment, the other is big corporations and states rights. This is the United States. Not the confederation of states(a group of states that are allied together to form a political unit in which they keep most of their independence but act together for purposes such as defense). If it was this way, America would be much different. Big brother is no solution either and is something people should oppose. Now you can see why the founding fathers had so much divison in which direction the country should go and how it should be run. This is where we are at right now. You have support for bigger goverment in varities of areas. Aswell as huge support for very small goverment that can and would effect many people. I think a nation should care to its people and veterans. Right now were willing to send troops to war and not have the proper funds or programs in place to support them or give them a job. The people come first, then foreign aid, and if war is absolutley neccsary, go ahead.

I have gone off topic now, but I agree with both cathy and bob. A comparison to hitler is radical, and some events in our time may bring about tragic consequences. Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

What say ye? Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

I found this thread interesting in the thought of comparing Germany during the era of Hitler to the Obama era of the USA.

1. Germany was in the throes of the worse depression in the history of Germany.

2. The USA is in the second worse economic era of its history – second only behind the great depression which was “inherited” by Hitler.

3. Hitler ran on a socially progressive platform of hope and change.

4. The Democratic promise is a socially progressive platform of hope and change.

5. Hitler quickly turned the German economy to one of the country’s most prospers eras. This was done through scientific innovations and advancements. Most historians remember the advancements in military technologies but this era in Germany oversaw engineering advancements in aviation, the internal combustion engine, electronic design (especially vacuum tube technology), education (indoctrinational methods)

6. The USA economy remains stagnant – though considered a recovery, it is the poorest recovery documented. This is also an era of stagnant technologies in the USA. There have been significant investments in “alternate” energy sources that have failed miserably while other countries (especially Asia) have made significant advancements in alternate energy sources. One possible advancement is the extraction of petroleum from geological deposits of oil shell – which is opposed by most democrats in favor of developing the “alternate” energy sources based on what is labeled the carbon footprint. In essence this is an era of technological “problems” rather than solutions.

7. The Hitler administration blamed problems on undesirable elements (interesting these were non-progressive or conservative elements). It was basically believed that such elements should have no say in political futures. There were strong efforts through propaganda to eliminate such elements from making political contributions – labeling such elements as criminal and using the law to take actions and make arrests.

8. The current Democratic administration blames problems on undesirable elements (also interesting these are non-progressive or conservative element). Though there have been propaganda elements of label opposition candidates as felons there are no legal actions taken.

I could include many more – but I think this is already destined to degenerate into political blaming that will get me in trouble for starting or turning the discussion towards dangerous dialogs likely to get myself and other banned from the forum.

Thus my opinion? There is an obvious comparison that honest persons should not be fearful of considering. Those that are fearful of making historical comparisons to current era events – are doomed to repeat the worse elements of history in their own era.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could include many more – but I think this is already destined to degenerate into political blaming that will get me in trouble for starting or turning the discussion towards dangerous dialogs likely to get myself and other banned from the forum.

The Traveler

Please, don't stop making comparisons of President Obama to Adolf Hitler just because you don't want to get into trouble. Stand up for your beliefs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thinker

There is an obvious comparison that honest persons should not be fearful of considering. Those that are fearful of making historical comparisons to current era events – are doomed to repeat the worse elements of history in their own era.

Excellent point, Traveler.

I didn't vote for Obama.

It seemed obvious to me by the pattern of his actions that he was more interested in pleasing others, rather than doing what is best for our country.

I tend to see what is best for our country as being financially conservative, help for emergencies but no free hand-outs (this goes for both those who manipulate the system and the loop holes some use to avoid taxes), as well as having basic moral values - not discriminating based on age through abortion, still supporting the foundational unit of society - marriage/heterosexual unions from which all children come.

I disagree with most of the reasons the US has waged war - many of them have been bullying over resources.

Most US presidents have been scapegoats - all of a nation's problems cannot logically be blamed on one person. Each President has been like a pawn, for others' use. Still, it is important to consider the enormous responsibility each president has as commander in chief...

Consider that the US has been in some war almost every year, since it's founding in 1776. 214 years of war!

"We're at War!" -- And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making | loonwatch.com

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It makes you wonder who all of the players have been in leading this country - especially when it comes to the horrors of war.

This last election, Obama and Romney were playing the new game, with new corrupt rules...

The .1% in "Super PACs" are now buying our elections... influencing both parties...

In 1984, incumbant President Ronald Reagan only attended 4 fundraisers, and in this last election, incumbant President Obama attended 221 fundraisers - meanwhile, who was doing his job as president of the United States of America while he was busy kissing behinds for money??

In 2011 "SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a federal court found restrictions on individual contributions to independent organizations that seek to influence elections to be unconstitutional" ...

But I see this Super PAC basis of financially influencing elections & subsequent government actions (as return favors) as unconstitutional.

There needs to be campaign reform, or else, the principles of democracy which the US was oringinally founded on, will be history.

Edited by Thinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share