The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.

They want it both ways. They scream about "free market! free market! let the market decide!" but then anytime the issue of revoking the antitrust exemption for insurance companies (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is brought up, all of a sudden it's "Whoooooaaaa, not that free of a market!" The insurance companies in this country are absolute slimeballs and one of the worst examples of regulatory capture.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity.

It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair.

Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes.

Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.

Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited.

Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited. ""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all, let me thank you Mookie. While we disagree, this conversation has a tone in which we are dealing with the problem - now lets see over the course of some give and take how we can get closer to a solution that maybe people can get behind!

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

I agree it is the prevailing view. As to if its necessary - well you put forth a good arguement as to why.

Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Maybe. But lets not dismiss it quite yet since you bring up the point in a way below.

Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Like almost every well meaning idea - there are success and failures. Things like Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, even Social Security, were all programs started with wonderful intentions. You are right in the point that none of us want to "go back to" those bad old days. The problem is that while these programs have alleviated some problems - they have created more.

The elderly do not always have multiple sources of income. Many survive on a "fixed income" that is - under most cases - almost all Social Security. That means in 2011, they recieved less than $1200 a month.

Social Security benefits represent about 41% of the elderly's income, according to the Social Security Administration. But 22% of married couples and 43% of singles rely on the monthly checks for 90% of their income.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/19/news...ease/index.htm

Nearly 1 out of 4 elderly rely almost exclusively on SS payments. And the amount they get is just barely enough to keep them above the federal poverty numbers. And that is not counting all the other help they get - with Medicare, etc. Just ask AARP about whether or not subsistance (and not a "living wage" amount) is sufficient for the elderly.

Welfare - the most the state will allow in TANF is usually around $650 - Still well below the poverty cutoff. If you make money, you lose benefit money. So welfare is not lifting people out of poverty - and in some ways its incentivizing them to not work a "low paying" job.... so instead of a solution, its prolonging the problem....

Continuing the cycle and exacerbating the situation for those who are poor is trapping people in poverty - so how is this "better"?

Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

The "social safety net" has become an utter failure. Continuing to support programs that "make you feel good" because of their purpose - but are abject failures - thus leaving the poor worse off than before - is just as much social Darwinism.

Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited.

So is promising them help, only to have that "help" be a hinderance instead. Especially when it comes at the expense of others through forced wealth distribuiton at the behest of the government tax man.

""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

Seriously - if your going to quote Jesus - please provide context. This is at the judgement - and it was those who never CHOSE to follow the Lamb that would be told this - because good works do not earn you a pass into heaven. If anything - the quote proves the point - we could all claim to have clothed the destitute, fed the hungry, comforted the poor - because the government did it with our money. And Jesus says - that doesn't fly. Doing it for the wrong reason (be it because it makes you feel good about yourself - or because the "gubment" makes you) is a fail. Still, I digress.....

Now I submit that we need to consider that if the "answer" we have used for more than 30 years has failed - its time to come up with a new answer to the problem.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there? Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.



The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?


[QUOTE=CaptainHaplo;1852809]
So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.]/quote] You're the one that brought up the expanding ranks of poor.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.



You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
What? Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?

No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

As I told Hap, I'm glad we live in a country where (for the most part) the poor aren't dying in the streets from sickness and hunger. Social Darwinism is brutal. It rewards those who take advantage of and exploit others. It necessarily places a lower value on some human life. It stratifies and divides society into caste systems. That's the antithesis of what America is to me. "All men are created equal."

If you want to get purely economical about it, having consumers die in the streets is bad for business. Better to keep them alive and spending.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose.

I have a friend who is part of Manna food bank. They provide food for a number of other charities, as well as direct to society. I asked him how many people he could feed if he got 10% of what is spent in foodstamp purchases in the area. Granted - we have no hard numbers - but his answer was quick and sure - 20% of the people getting foodstamps was what he could feed. That is with nutritious meals - not the crap that many snap recipients choose to purchase. Nothing the government does is efficient. Thus - it is wasteful.

When you can do more with less because its not government run, when you can do more with less because its done out of compassion and a desire to help, instead of compulsory by government, its foolish to not do so. Unless of course, you don't care about results......

Quite honestly - that is my biggest gripe with the left - results don't matter, only the "intent" when it comes to entitlements.

*edit - I also take exception to it being "their" foodstamps etc... They didn't pay for them - we of the working class did. It just shows how screwed up the thinking is - one person pays so another person can lay claim to something.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose

Nope. I already said that whether someone eats or not shouldn't depend on how generous another person feels that day.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there?

How much better would it be if those programs were not there? We have no way of knowing either way....

Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.

The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.

You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".