|
good stuff
Patrick, you have to remember, we're debating Europeans. They seem to think money comes out of thin air. They ignore the fact that China was insignificant until she opened her markets and tasted the sweet nectar of Capitalism. Ditto India. They also seem to forget that the electorate (the unwashed masses) in Europe are trending right these days (Spain would probably still be center-right had Al Qaida not blown up the train right before elections), as the burden of high taxes and ineffective social programs are starting to turn the electorate off. Europe is trending towards a more "middle ground" approach, China and India are trending towards a much more business-friendly scenario than they've ever seen (and are more economically viable, their citizens are better off - still not to Western standards, but moving in that direction) yet the intelligentsia in both Western Europe and the U.S. want us to adopt '70s style social liberalism? America doesn't do 10%+ unemployment and heavy inflation well, but that's what everyone wants for us, it seems.
|
|
Pure science isn't profitable. Finding real-world applications is what makes the findings profitable. That takes private sector companies to accomplish. Though I feel that funding scientific inquiry is one of the things government SHOULD be doing (and bloody more of it IMHO). Some research requires the massive resources a government can bring to bear.Quite so. Pure science, however, as Zombieneighbours mentioned, can open up huge new fields of study for later development and applications. Atomic Theory was once pure science, and yet we now have many practical applications from that. Same with genetics. If the LHC does find the Higgs Boson, and allows physicists to resolve their standard model, and maybe work on a Unified Field Theory, who knows what new developments might lead on from that? Heck, Electricity was once pure science. It took Edison to come along and make a profit out of it, but if it wasn't for the original pure research into that, Edison couldn't have patented the lightbulb, as there wouldn't be easy access to electricity.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider the most important thing?The betterment of humanity as a whole. So, I'd say that the eradication of smallpox from Earth was one of the greatest (and least talked about) achievements of the 20th century, and that damn well needed governments to do it.
Sure, wealth creation is important. But pure wealth creation doesn't always help humanity.
If any of you would actually go back and read Patrick and I's posts with an unjaundiced eye, I think you'd understand what we're saying. Wasting money isn't necessary to achieve the benefits we all agree government can bring us. But, apparently, pissing wealth into the wind is perfectly acceptable if some benefit comes from the (relative to the overall budget) small amount of money that actually does some good.
The point both of you are missing is this: wealth wasted inefficiently is money the private sector can never again use to invest in making the advancements NASA and other scientists profitable, which means more people suffer because the private sector isn't creating jobs with that squandered wealth. Wealth doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics, it follows the laws of economics, wealth squandered is wealth lost, period.
Quite so. Pure science, however, as Zombieneighbours mentioned, can open up huge new fields of study for later development and applications. Atomic Theory was once pure science, and yet we now have many practical applications from that. Same with genetics. If the LHC does find the Higgs Boson, and allows physicists to resolve their standard model, and maybe work on a Unified Field Theory, who knows what new developments might lead on from that? Heck, Electricity was once pure science. It took Edison to come along and make a profit out of it, but if it wasn't for the original pure research into that, Edison couldn't have patented the lightbulb, as there wouldn't be easy access to electricity.
I'm not sure, but I think we are in agreement here. Pure science CAN open up the opportunity for massive profit, but the findings must be applied by private sector companies. Government serves the people well by funding pure research, as sometimes lines of research that were not obviously profitable turn out to be the most profitable when explored. I agree that government should fund science. It is just that government never develops profitable items from science. That takes the private sector. Once again we come to HD's assertion that governments don't create wealth, merely collects and redistributes it.
The betterment of humanity as a whole. So, I'd say that the eradication of smallpox from Earth was one of the greatest (and least talked about) achievements of the 20th century, and that damn well needed governments to do it.
Sure, wealth creation is important. But pure wealth creation doesn't always help humanity.
Once again, without wealth, and the taxes generated by it, the governments would be unable to undertake such sweeping projects. Taxes fund these things, all Derek and I want is for government to stop burning through the money like it has no end. There is shocking waste and fraud in the current budget, as well as truly horrifying debt loads. We need to do some triage, and concentrate on what the government SHOULD be doing: Building supercolliders and eradicating diseases rather than insuring that everyone has a free house and car and a check in the mail.
One final point. When governments start to tax their subjects heavily, their revenues mysteriously fall. Why? Because the money goes into hiding. People cry about tax cuts for the rich, but the rich are our employers. The rich furnish the jobs, work 90-hours-a-week to make their businesses viable, and donate a LOT of money to many charities (at least the rich folks I have known). It's not a life I would desire, but that is why I'm not rich. Why are these folks going to keep putting capital out there if it is just going to be taxed at an usurous rate? They'll find ways of sheltering it. The bad part of this is then that capital is not out creating more wealth. It does no good to anyone.
|
For all the calls for 'balanced budgets' and 'governments should stop burning through the money like it has no end', you seem to be forgetting something. Namely, the recession we are all currently in? You know, the one caused by de-regulation and letting the free market have it's way? Greenspan made the mistake of expecting the banks to behave in a rational manner. Surprise, they didn't. They pursued profit to no end. (By the way, I've noticed that the private sector can be just as inefficient as the public one.) Given this market failure, the governments had to step in and kickstart the economy, and yes, this costs money. Sure, there will be waste and inefficiency and pork and all that, but the main thrust of all that money going into the economy should hopefully ensure its recovery.
Now, here's the thing. Pure science advances humanity. This is of a much greater importance then creating wealth. Governments, as they focus on things OTHER then creating wealth, can do things that private business do not. They can sponsor pure science. I mean, do you think many businesses would put down the 6.4 Billion Euros for the Large Hadron Collider? No, and why not? Because there would be no immediate money spinning benefit. Governments can provide the initial investment, not only in science but in infrastructure and essential services, that allow private enterprise to function. It's a symbiotic relationship, in which both parties are essential. In that sense, Governments do create wealth, by creating the conditions in which wealth can be created.
We Europeans simply think that the government should be strong, and have a big say in how the economy is run. Oh, and by the way, we European Socialists who think that money comes out of thin air enjoy a GDP greater then the United States. ($18.85 trillion compared to $14.33 trillion. Source) Not bad for a bunch of socialists, right? Maybe we know a thing or two about business? I mean, who's Fiat buying now?
Once again, without wealth, and the taxes generated by it, the governments would be unable to undertake such sweeping projects. Taxes fund these things, all Derek and I want is for government to stop burning through the money like it has no end.
They take taxes based on profit created by the application of science they funded in the first place. Thus it's circular and in essence what the government is doing, is saying "Okay, the price for giving you this technology is taxes... which we'll then re-invest in furthering technology so you can apply it later and benefit from it again."
I know, fairly simplistic setup, but that is, in many ways, how it works (when we're talking about the scientific field).Also, I think we all might agree that instead of saying that government creates wealth, it promotes wealth (whether by funding research, providing benefits for workers, health care etc. (some of which only happen here in socialistic Europe, of course ;-)), thus indirectly generating wealth.
I'll agree, though, that there is more waste than need be in most governments (I know, shocking coming from a socialist European). However, all the blame of this cannot be laid entirely at the feet of wellfare-moochers, but is also the fault of numerous business leechers (lobbyists) - so these very people, whom free-marketers say should have more freedom, are actually sucking the government dry too.
Oh, and by the way, we European Socialists who think that money comes out of thin air enjoy a GDP greater then the United States. ($18.85 trillion compared to $14.33 trillion. Source) Not bad for a bunch of socialists, right? Maybe we know a thing or two about business? I mean,...
You're forgetting that the European Union has around 500 million people compared to 300 million for the Americans. We're still way ahead of you on a per capita basis. However, I do believe if you guys would wise up and develop a more free economy, you'd probably bury us.
The creation and preservation of culture, which is arguably one of our two purposes in life, along with the continuation of our genes.Well, that's very Darwininan, but I would agree that's pretty much it stripped of all frills. I would posit that wealth creation makes culture possible and further continues our genes. Without wealth creation we have no civilized culture, we are hunter gatherers. And yes I understand that hunter gatherers had a form of culture, it just wasn't one that could support anything beyond base day-to-day survival. The first people to domesticate animals and plants paved the way to food surplusses and the freedom to think beyond gathering the next meal.
I mean, C.E.R.N. is more important to humanity as a whole and its future survival that general motors ever will be. We as a species can do without general motor, but if we don't expand our knowledge, we are doomed to extinction.But massive facilities like C.E.R.N require wealth to build no? My take on the matter is that if you are spending immense amounts of money propping up an ever-expanding entitlement system, there will be less money to spend on such projects. I agree that we can do without General Motors, but who is throwing billions of dollars into it to keep it afloat, when it should have gone into bankrupcy last Fall?
When it came to funding our own Superconducting Super Collider it was derided as a Cold War 'Star Wars' type project and left to wither and die on the vine. Those deriding it were the congresspeople of the 92-94 era, when the Democrats held both legislative houses. Now we have thrown more into our unprofitable car companies than would have taken to build the SSC.
Wealth is a thought tool. It doesn't actually exist. A society needs only to be able to create enough food that some people are able to work in feilds other than making food. It just happens that the illusion of wealth and the market happen to be fairly good ways to achieve this. Wealth itself is meaningless other than as a tool.
CERN does not require wealth in anyway. It requires human cooperation and effort. Wealth is just the best way of achieving that in the modern world.
On keeping general motors afloat. I think that was done wrong in so many ways, but the problem was in how it was done, not what was done.
With everything the way it is however I suspect that it had to happen.
Over christmas we saw a pale shadow of what would happen.
A house hold name company went under. Our government didn't step in.
It caused a domino effect of company collapse as companies who trade with the first who went under because of loss of a major customer, to then another major household name who was dependant on one of those support companies, which hit their ability to be able to trade at the most profitable time of year.
The result, job losses far beyond the original company and less compition in the market.
Most of the people who lost jobs are still unemployed, and are being supported by the state.
We have a national insurance system, so they have earned the right to recieve this aid, but it may end up costing the country more for not acting.
Oh, and by the way, we European Socialists who think that money comes out of thin air enjoy a GDP greater then the United States. ($18.85 trillion compared to $14.33 trillion. Source) Not bad for a bunch of socialists, right? Maybe we know a thing or two about business? I mean,...You're forgetting that the European Union has around 500 million people compared to 300 million for the Americans. We're still way ahead of you on a per capita basis. However, I do believe if you guys would wise up and develop a more free economy, you'd probably bury us.
Mmm....but did you just invite five or six relatively pour nation states to join the club? Give it ten years without european expansion and see what it looks like then.
I realize this is coming late, and things have moved on, but people don't become muggers because they don't have a house. There is a good enough support system in the US, that this is not necessary. No, people become muggers because they want money for drugs, alcohol, new stereo system, etc. It is a bit offensive to tell someone like me and my wife, who were responsible and didn't get into a bad loan, that if we don't give money to the people that did, they will mug us. I say, that is what you are doing now.
Realistically though, government acts like parents. See I have a large family, 8 siblings (mom has 6 kids, dad has 5 kids, 2 kids overlap, yeah my family tree has been hit with lightning several times). Where does my parents money end up being sent to, the kids that actually have potential, the college grads or the ones holding good jobs? No, most of the money my parents use to help their kids is sent to the kids who barely finished high school and who can't hold a steady job and who can't hold relationships together. That is how governments act. They ignore or even punish the well-to-dos because they can't stand to see the never-do-wells struggle with the consequences of their own choices.
Does the governments action make me think, "Hey, I can be irresponsible, because they will bail me out." No. It makes me be even more cautious because I fully expect to get screwed even more.
|
|
Ok, just a couple of coppers to add to the discussion.
1) HD, Love of money is the root of all evil. ;-) In other words, wealth creation isn't the be all and end all. Drug dealers create wealth as much as more legitimate businessmen, after all.
2) On the welfare dependency, this is a serious problem with having a safety net. Sometimes you will reward people who don't deserve it, or encourage the behavior you don't approve of (given this is a consistent problem in every country with a welfare state, sometimes is quite a large number of times before anyone points it out). The problem is, if you tighten it up, or eliminate it altogether, you end up denying people who do deserve it. Obviously the ideal solution would do neither but no one's managed to come up with that yet, and until they do, it's just a case of whether you're more concerned that the deserving are not harmed or the undeserving are not rewarded. Liberals tend to believe it's more important to not punish the deserving even if they reward a lot of the undeserving with it, while conservatives tend to feel that they shouldn't reward the undeserving, even if that means a few legitimately deserving people suffer for it.
I'm not sure what the solution is. But I tend to be on the "not harm the deserving is the priority" side. I'm too soft to be a libertarian and let everyone suffer fully the consequences of their errors and bad choices. And I've had this sort of circular argument with libertarian friends enough to know it ain't going to get resolved as people are talking past each other.
Ok, just a couple of coppers to add to the discussion.
1) HD, Love of money is the root of all evil. ;-) In other words, wealth creation isn't the be all and end all. Drug dealers create wealth as much as more legitimate businessmen, after all.
I can't speak for HD, but I believe it's less a 'love' of money than a hatred of waste that propels the discussion. If HD loved money he probably would have returned to his scofflaw ways.
2) On the welfare dependency, this is a serious problem with having a safety net. Sometimes you will reward people who don't deserve it, or encourage the behavior you don't approve of (given this is a consistent problem in every country with a welfare state, sometimes is quite a large number of times before anyone points it out). The problem is, if you tighten it up, or eliminate it altogether, you end up denying people who do deserve it. Obviously the ideal solution would do neither but no one's managed to come up with that yet, and until they do, it's just a case of whether you're more concerned that the deserving are not harmed or the undeserving are not rewarded. Liberals tend to believe it's more important to not punish the deserving even if they reward a lot of the undeserving with it, while conservatives tend to feel that they shouldn't reward the undeserving, even if that means a few legitimately deserving people suffer for it.
I'm not sure what the solution is. But I tend to be on the "not harm the deserving is the priority" side. I'm too soft to be a libertarian and let everyone suffer fully the consequences of their errors and bad choices. And I've had this sort of circular argument with libertarian friends enough to know it ain't going to get resolved as people are talking past each other.
I know personally I am all for a 'safety net' when it comes to welfare. I would not wish to get rid of it. The problem becomes, how wide of a net do you need? Welfare, IMO, should be a last resort for people who no fault of their own have come upon hard times. When it becomes an enticing alternate to working, then you begin to have problems. Let's take a thought experiment:
1. An 18-year-old girl finishes high school and wants to persue a career in nursing. The college costs in excess of $20,000 a year. Besides this, there are the expenses of room & board. If she is willing to have a child out of wedlock (which now carries no social stigma whatsoever) the governement will: a) pay for the college. b) provide housing c) provide a clothing allowance and a monthly check.
Now, what would be the logical thing for the girl to do, assuming that she doesn't come from a rich family? I can't even blame her, the temptation is just too great.
I understand wanting to help people. As I mentioned upthread I personally spend a lot of time and money helping others. My problem is that I see the government taking in a dollar in taxes and dispersing 15 cents of it. I don't like supporting a bureaucratic welfare state on top of a welfare state. I don't believe that it can't be done better. Private charities do better all the time. In fact, if a private charity operated like the government it would never get a single donation.
|
|
Ok, just a couple of coppers to add to the discussion.
1) HD, Love of money is the root of all evil. ;-) In other words, wealth creation isn't the be all and end all. Drug dealers create wealth as much as more legitimate businessmen, after all.
I can't speak for HD, but I believe it's less a 'love' of money than a hatred of waste that propels the discussion. If HD loved money he probably would have returned to his scofflaw ways.
I know personally I am all for a 'safety net' when it comes to welfare. I would not wish to get rid of it. The problem becomes, how wide of a net do you need? Welfare, IMO, should be a last resort for people who...2) On the welfare dependency, this is a serious problem with having a safety net. Sometimes you will reward people who don't deserve it, or encourage the behavior you don't approve of (given this is a consistent problem in every country with a welfare state, sometimes is quite a large number of times before anyone points it out). The problem is, if you tighten it up, or eliminate it altogether, you end up denying people who do deserve it. Obviously the ideal solution would do neither but no one's managed to come up with that yet, and until they do, it's just a case of whether you're more concerned that the deserving are not harmed or the undeserving are not rewarded. Liberals tend to believe it's more important to not punish the deserving even if they reward a lot of the undeserving with it, while conservatives tend to feel that they shouldn't reward the undeserving, even if that means a few legitimately deserving people suffer for it.
I'm not sure what the solution is. But I tend to be on the "not harm the deserving is the priority" side. I'm too soft to be a libertarian and let everyone suffer fully the consequences of their errors and bad choices. And I've had this sort of circular argument with libertarian friends enough to know it ain't going to get resolved as people are talking past each other.
Patrick,
And how would you change the rules so that she shouldn't while not disadvantaging people who are raped or whose husband and breadwinner dies while they're pregnant? I'm sure you can think of similar examples where restricting would produce undesirable outcomes to those who would fall into your definition of deserving. That's the point I'm making. I accept that there's a problem, but have a different emphasis on the solution than you do.And with regards to the 1st comment, it was meant as humour on the fact that he was only talking about wealth and ignoring the things that government does that are worthwhile but don't generate wealth, rather than any sort of serious comment on HD's morals.
And how would you change the rules so that she shouldn't while not disadvantaging people who are raped or whose husband and breadwinner dies while they're pregnant? I'm sure you can think of similar examples where restricting would produce undesirable outcomes to those who would fall into your definition of deserving. That's the point I'm making. I accept that there's a problem, but have a different emphasis on the solution than you do.
Why not give the girl without the kid the exact same benefits (paid college, room and board, and spending money)? Why should she be "punished" for not having a child (making a good choice), while the girl who has the kid is "rewarded".
|
|
And how would you change the rules so that she shouldn't while not disadvantaging people who are raped or whose husband and breadwinner dies while they're pregnant? I'm sure you can think of similar examples where restricting would produce undesirable outcomes to those who would fall into your definition of deserving. That's the point I'm making. I accept that there's a problem, but have a different emphasis on the solution than you do.Why not give the girl without the kid the exact same benefits (paid college, room and board, and spending money)? Why should she be "punished" for not having a child (making a good choice), while the girl who has the kid is "rewarded".
I thought you were a conservative and wanted to reduce the welfare state's role, not increase it. ;-)
long post
Paul, I understand your viewpoint, and thank you for your insightful discussion. I have these discussions with my liberal friends as you have with your Libertarian friends, and I understand the point that we are talking past each other, since we both have a different perspective of the situation. I still enjoy these discussions, even if there is little chance of either of us changing our beliefs. I know sometimes discussion even modifies our stance, as I have softened my stance on health care recently, since though government isn't my first choice what we have going on now ain't working so well.
Also, sorry if I came off a bit snarky on your humorous post. It was not meant as much, I have dealt with the opinion that Libertarians are greedy and heartless when they ask the government to reform itself. I think you can be fiscally thrifty and compassionate at the same time. I actually think you could help MORE folks if the bureaucracy was pared down, and they were held more accountable.
As to how to help those who need it and sceen the rest? I'm not sure. That's supposed to be the government's job, but they have dropped the ball. Maybe funding a subcontracting privately owned company to disburse the welfare funds? Of course you are probably just switching the parasites from government to government contractors. It's a hard problem. I just don't think what we are doing now is working, and it's expanding beyond sustainabliity. Plus, since I am now seeing the long-term effects of my peers who went the government support route (massive addiction/depression/health issues) I honestly don't think we are doing anyone a favor by subsidizing them over the long run.
|
|
long postPaul, I understand your viewpoint, and thank you for your insightful discussion. I have these discussions with my liberal friends as you have with your Libertarian friends, and I understand the point that we are talking past each other, since we both have a different perspective of the situation. I still enjoy these discussions, even if there is little chance of either of us changing our beliefs. I know sometimes discussion even modifies our stance, as I have softened my stance on health care recently, since though government isn't my first choice what we have going on now ain't working so well.
Also, sorry if I came off a bit snarky on your humorous post. It was not meant as much, I have dealt with the opinion that Libertarians are greedy and heartless when they ask the government to reform itself. I think you can be fiscally thrifty and compassionate at the same time. I actually think you could help MORE folks if the bureaucracy was pared down, and they were held more accountable.
As to how to help those who need it and sceen the rest? I'm not sure. That's supposed to be the government's job, but they have dropped the ball. Maybe funding a subcontracting privately owned company to disburse the welfare funds? Of course you are probably just switching the parasites from government to government contractors. It's a hard problem. I just don't think what we are doing now is working, and it's expanding beyond sustainabliity. Plus, since I am now seeing the long-term effects of my peers who went the government support route (massive addiction/depression/health issues) I honestly don't think we are doing anyone a favor by subsidizing them over the long run.
I don't disagree that the current system, in both our countries, isn't working. The problem comes with what the solution is. Some on the economic right seem to want the whole thing dismantled and those who are currently on it left to their own devices to sink or swim. Some on the left are even more unreasonable in what welfare can achieve.
It should be a safety net. Unfortunately, as a safety net, it will mostly go to people who've screwed up in some way, so it rewards irresponsibility. I'm not sure a way around that can be found. And no matter what system you devise, there will be some who will game it. And if you make it more complicated to be targeted better and prevent the gaming, it costs more in bureaucracy. Like I said, I agree there's a problem. It's the solutions proposed I have a few problems with.
And how would you change the rules so that she shouldn't while not disadvantaging people who are raped or whose husband and breadwinner dies while they're pregnant? I'm sure you can think of similar examples where restricting would produce undesirable outcomes to those who would fall into your definition of deserving. That's the point I'm making. I accept that there's a problem, but have a different emphasis on the solution than you do.Why not give the girl without the kid the exact same benefits (paid college, room and board, and spending money)? Why should she be "punished" for not having a child (making a good choice), while the girl who has the kid is "rewarded".
It isn't about punishment or reward. It is about ensuring that people have what they need to have the best chance of success. One simply needs more support than the other to have an equal chance of success.
That said, a society that wishs to have a successful population really should be investing in higher education as well as secondary education.
It isn't about punishment or reward. It is about ensuring that people have what they need to have the best chance of success. One simply needs more support than the other to have an equal chance of success.
The problem isn't that there are two different people in the example. The problem is there are two paths for one person to take. Assuming $100,000 in expenses for a four-year college or having a child and not paying anything. For most, the kid is the much better option.
That said, a society that wishs to have a successful population really should be investing in higher education as well as secondary education.
I agree. I would also posit that the costs of a higher education are rapidly becoming untenable for people trying to do it on their own. Somehow the cost of higher education has skyrocketed, over ten times what I paid back in the Eighties. I don't know enough about the underpinnings to say why this is, but it seems out of whack that education has become so expensive.
And how would you change the rules so that she shouldn't while not disadvantaging people who are raped or whose husband and breadwinner dies while they're pregnant? I'm sure you can think of similar examples where restricting would produce undesirable outcomes to those who would fall into your definition of deserving. That's the point I'm making. I accept that there's a problem, but have a different emphasis on the solution than you do.Why not give the girl without the kid the exact same benefits (paid college, room and board, and spending money)? Why should she be "punished" for not having a child (making a good choice), while the girl who has the kid is "rewarded".
Actually, some countries do pretty much that. Not free room and board, but access to low rent housing, "free"* education (all the way from kindergarten through college/university) and a monthly "student salary/aid."
Single parents do get something extra, but they also have more expenses, naturally. Things like extra food, clothes, diapers, child care etc.* just want to be on the forefront of the "but it's not really free when you pay so much in taxes"-comments ;-)
The problem isn't that there are two different people in the example. The problem is there are two paths for one person to take. Assuming $100,000 in expenses for a four-year college or having a child and not paying anything. For most, the kid is the much better option.
It isn't about punishment or reward. It is about ensuring that people have what they need to have the best chance of success. One simply needs more support than the other to have an equal chance of success.
Hardly. Money is only one part of the equasion. Their are numerous other conditions which alter the attractiveness of the choice. Most of the girls I know who have even the slightest chance of higher education, simply wouldn't make this choice. Those who would...well they arn't going to be going on to higher education. Hell, most of them would accept the student debt and still think they got the better deal.
If you where making the case that given the choice between having no hope of getting a house or a decent job and living on tiny levels of benifit without a baby, and getting a little, fairly s*@~ty appartment, a tiny bit mre cash and a slightly easier time with the people at social security, but gathering massive social stigma and a dependant your equiped to raise properly, you would be presenting a much more reasonable and realistic dilemma.
Plus, since I am now seeing the long-term effects of my peers who went the government support route (massive addiction/depression/health issues) I honestly don't think we are doing anyone a favor by subsidizing them over the long run.
Whoah, just want to make sure I'm not misreading you here. Are you grouping drug addicts with people with mental health/physical disabilities (yes, I know that some people fall into a habit because of mental and/or physical health issues)?
HUGE difference there. Yes, people, IMO, should get help with kicking their addiction (whether drugs, alcohol etc.), but I'm actually with HD here that these people did make a bad choice in the first place. The second group? Not so much a choice.As Paul Watson also says, you will always get moochers no matter what system you put up, the important part, though, is to make sure that you cover those who really do need the help.
I know that here in Denmark the government also tries to crack down on those who illegitimately collect wellfare from the state. If it's serious fraud, they'll even be prosecuted too.
There are also laws in place to ensure that those who are able to work are kept looking for a job, at the expense of losing their benefits if they don't.
|
Ok, Irealize there are going to be abusers of every system on basically every level of government program, and government positions. I think the key is to do everything you can to help the corner of the planet your on. Seriously volunteer get involved in community groups, clean up your neighborhood. It's very easy to sit back and complain that things are going down the crapper. Put actions behind your feelings, if more people got involved we would improve things that much more. And eventually we would have enough people involved in enough lacking problems some of these problems would start to disappear.
Whoah, just want to make sure I'm not misreading you here. Are you grouping drug addicts with people with mental health/physical disabilities (yes, I know that some people fall into a habit because of mental and/or physical health issues)?
Actually, yes, that is not what I intended by my statement. What I meant to say is that the people (that I personally have interaction with, YMMV) that have spent 25 years collecting government money of some sort or another suffer depression (or if you don't like me using that word: A sense of hopelessness and ennui) more (not through mental illness, but rather through living in bad conditions) and tend to have worse health (heart, lungs, etc) than the norm, mostly because of lifestyle. Also, most of them have developed drug habits, especially recently there is a wave of perscription drug abusing that seems to be on the rise (Percoset, Oxycontin, Vicodin, etc.). I have two daughters who both suffer from mental illnesses and physical disabilities, so I am very sensitive of the difference.
I fully understand no matter how airtight the system is, people will find a way to game it. It's like the example above: How do you differentiate from the girl who has a baby to collect benefits, ot the girl who legitimately had a child and had the father skip out?
I just feel that either the system needs tightening of standards or at some point in the future, most likely when the Baby Boomers begin to retire en masse that the current system will have a catastrophic failure. I think the consequences of saying 'there's nothing we can do' are a lot worse than 'let's do something now to avert problems later'. Unfortunately most people can't think ahead a year, let alone ten.
Again, no one has a crystal ball on the future. This whole conundrum could go the way of the Malthusian prophecies if we develop a way of generating cheap energy and nanoscale matter compiling. Then all bets are off and we can all become artists..:)
Ok, Irealize there are going to be abusers of every system on basically every level of government program, and government positions. I think the key is to do everything you can to help the corner of the planet your on. Seriously volunteer get involved in community groups, clean up your neighborhood. It's very easy to sit back and complain that things are going down the crapper. Put actions behind your feelings, if more people got involved we would improve things that much more. And eventually we would have enough people involved in enough lacking problems some of these problems would start to disappear.
Absolutely correct. The problem I see is people who expect 'somebody else' to take care of the problems. I have two foster dogs and one foster child in my house at the moment. Looking at my checkbook I have donated $250 this month to various charities (Audubon, both national level and Massachusetts, The Boston Animal Rescue League, the MSPCA, WWF, etc. etc.).
If we all contributed a bit of our time and money to alleviate this problem it would help in two veins: One, you could judge what good your efforts are doing because you are right there. Two: The level of bureaucrats needed to administer aid could be pared back, which is where the real waste lies.
I don't think the person getting a $1,000 a month welfare check is the problem, it's the five bureaucrats with their full benefits package and $50K salary it takes to get that check to the recipient.
Ok, Irealize there are going to be abusers of every system on basically every level of government program, and government positions. I think the key is to do everything you can to help the corner of the planet your on. Seriously volunteer get involved in community groups, clean up your neighborhood. It's very easy to sit back and complain that things are going down the crapper. Put actions behind your feelings, if more people got involved we would improve things that much more. And eventually we would have enough people involved in enough lacking problems some of these problems would start to disappear.Absolutely correct. The problem I see is people who expect 'somebody else' to take care of the problems. I have two foster dogs and one foster child in my house at the moment. Looking at my checkbook I have donated $250 this month to various charities (Audubon, both national level and Massachusetts, The Boston Animal Rescue League, the MSPCA, WWF, etc. etc.).
If we all contributed a bit of our time and money to alleviate this problem it would help in two veins: One, you could judge what good your efforts are doing because you are right there. Two: The level of bureaucrats needed to administer aid could be pared back, which is where the real waste lies.
I don't think the person getting a $1,000 a month welfare check is the problem, it's the five bureaucrats with their full benefits package and $50K salary it takes to get that check to the recipient.
With out an administerative system the money will never be spent and the services will not be provides. Their needs to be some sort of system to administer the spending. The people who run the system have to be paid.
So, what do you expect it to be replaced with exactly?
You have three choices for welfare provision. On the privision front.
Government:
Does have issues. They have staff who perform work and require to be paid. They are sometimes unwieldy and suffer from a lack of accountability. Despite this, they are operated by well payed professional with some degree of accountabilty.
Charities: Mix skilled and unskilled members, with zero accountability. On the plus side many people on the ground are caring and well meaning. Any charity wishing to administer social security on a national level would have to hire huge numbers of staff and create a bureaucracy to administer
Companies:
Are accountable to their shareholders first, they must make profit. This leads to exactly the same issue as Insurance Companies. If they don't Pay out, they get the money. Not to mention that savings made by trimming out administrators will most likely find their way into the executives pay check and the investors.
Then we have source of funding -
Taxation: As some one who has worked in the charitable sector, that taxation was in general the most direct method by which we ever got money. But either way, that money still has to pass through a bureaucracy to get to us and within most charities, a goodly number of people of professional wages have to handle the money to administer it.
Voluntary donation: Firstly, it lacks any form of fairness, given that many people just won't give. Your 'punishing' the philanthropic and 'rewarding' the greedy.
Rewarded donation: Systems like the national lottery. Certainly useful, but far from able to meet the levels of need. Also of dubious morality as private companies profit from the idea of charity.
Your wanting to trust to human nature and utterly forgetting that humans for the most part, suck in a very big way.
Lastly, you are forgetting that getting ride of those bureaucrats would just put them, or some one else out of employment and their wage isn't 'wasted' it goes into the economy and helps to support numerous industries and the country in turn.
|
|
Government:
Does have issues. They have staff who perform work and require to be paid. They are sometimes unwieldy and suffer...
Zombieneighbors, our bureaucrats hardly deserve the titles "professional" and "skilled". The difference between government bureaucracy and charity is two-fold. First, the amateur volunteers for charities are actually interested in helping people going through rough times, the governmenbt workers are interestede in their paycheck (I know there are some who care in government, but many of those, from my personal experience, quit after a time from frustration at not being able to change a corrupt and inefficient system and find other ways to help people). The other side of the fold is this: if charities do not run efficiently and get most of the money to the needy, people stop giving them money. When government does that (wastes 80% of the money earmarked for the needy), they claim they don't get enough money, and people have no choice but to pony up or they face prison time (unless they're people in government, apparently).
If government civil relief workers WERE hard working, efficient and dedicated (rather than just happy to have a government job they'd basically have to kill someone to lose), I would agree. But they aren't.
Again, (I will presume to speak for Patrick as well as myself here), we do not have a problem with helping people in need. Giving a helping hand so someone can get back on their feet is what people should do to make this a better world. We both, however, think there are better ways of doing it that do not involve wasting money. If government can get rid of redundant jobs, unnecessary red tape that leads to wasted funds, and hold civil servants to a higher standard of accountability, and start getting most of the tax money to the needy, I have no problem with government assuming a role in that area. If they can't, we need to find a better way.
It is OUR money, not government's, and if they cannot be responsible with OUR money, they don't deserve it.
...Charities: Mix skilled and unskilled members, with zero accountability. On the plus side many people on the ground are caring and well meaning. Any charity wishing to administer social security on a national level would have to hire huge numbers of staff and create a bureaucracy to administer
I realize we are talking a bit past each other on this one ZN, and I agree with HD's previous post. I do have to stop for a minute to correct this statement of yours above that I quoted. Private charities have 100% accountablility. As HD said, if they waste donations no one will give them any more money. I have worked for the United Way (of Cape Cod) in former years as a volunteer in their public relations department and I can tell you that donation accountability was first and foremost in their minds. They were very proud of their 89% donations to the needy rate. They continually strived to find ways of stretching their money and enlisting members of the community to assist. They also released quarterly reports as to where every penny went to.
My problem with government, again as HD so ably said, is that I can't 'vote with my dollars' when it comes to taxes. I either pay or go to jail. There is a way to exercise some choice in where your tax money went, where you can get a charitable tax exemption by donatating to a private charity and write that amount off your tax bill, but now the Obama administration wants to shut that off. When this happens, there will be no choice as to where your dollars go, and the government will have finally ruined private charities.
...Charities: Mix skilled and unskilled members, with zero accountability. On the plus side many people on the ground are caring and well meaning. Any charity wishing to administer social security on a national level would have to hire huge numbers of staff and create a bureaucracy to administer
I realize we are talking a bit past each other on this one ZN, and I agree with HD's previous post. I do have to stop for a minute to correct this statement of yours above that I quoted. Private charities have 100% accountablility. As HD said, if they waste donations no one will give them any more money. I have worked for the United Way (of Cape Cod) in former years as a volunteer in their public relations department and I can tell you that donation accountability was first and foremost in their minds. They were very proud of their 89% donations to the needy rate. They continually strived to find ways of stretching their money and enlisting members of the community to assist. They also released quarterly reports as to where every penny went to.
My problem with government, again as HD so ably said, is that I can't 'vote with my dollars' when it comes to taxes. I either pay or go to jail. There is a way to exercise some choice in where your tax money went, where you can get a charitable tax exemption by donatating to a private charity and write that amount off your tax bill, but now the Obama administration wants to shut that off. When this happens, there will be no choice as to where your dollars go, and the government will have finally ruined private charities.
This is the hight of nievity.
No charity has to achieve its goals. All they have to do is appear to achieve them.
There is a reason a charities of any real size, have PR and Advertising departments with paid staff.
The only time i have every seen accountability within the charitable sector was while working with government money, where the money had to be accounted for.
Add to the fact that if the tax money that is raised for welfare is not taken in the first place, there is no garentee that the charities would be able to raise the money they would need to fill the gap. It is mathimatically optimal after all to not give to charity and advance your own wealth.
|
|
They went to the Moon?
They eradicated smallpox?Pretty impressive achievements that.
I have to concede smallpox. That is/was a remarkable achievement.
Going to the moon... I am having a hard time seeing what benefit that gave us aside from bragging rights. How are peoples lives better for our visit there?
|
|
What thing of significance have they done since, say, the interstate system was put in has been done well?
Invented the Internet.
Ended the Cold War.
Put a robot on Mars.
Prevented nuclear war.
Integrated public schools.It also passed the Endangered Species act that saved the:
* Bald Eagle (increased from 417 to 11,040 pairs between 1963 and 2007); removed from list 2007
* Whooping Crane (increased from 54 to 436 birds between 1967 and 2003)
* Peregrine Falcon (increased from 324 to 1,700 pairs between 1975 and 2000); removed from list
* Gray Wolf (populations increased dramatically in the Northern Rockies, Southwest, and Great Lakes)
* Gray Whale (increased from 13,095 to 26,635 whales between 1968 and 1998); removed from list (Debated due to the fact that whaling was banned before the ESA was set in place and that the ESA had nothing to do with the natural population increase since the cease of massive whaling [excluding Native American tribal whaling])
* Grizzly bear (increased from about 271 to over 580 bears in the Yellowstone area between 1975 and 2005); removed from list 3/22/07I mean, I appreciate know-nothing government no-goodnikism as much as the next guy, but let's try not to be completely obtuse.
Internet... point ceded.
Ended the Cold War... you mean after they helped start the Cold War?
Put a robot on Mars. Who cares? I mean scientifically, it is amazing. Practically, how much did that one robot cost? Was that the best use of those resources?
Prevented nuclear war. You mean prevented the use of the weapon they created? One that they used on a civilian population in WWII?
Integrated public schools. This is merely the fixing of another injustice that they caused. If I punch you in the face, should I be accountable for hitting you, or praised for stopping?
So far as the Endangered Species Act... One of my conditions was efficiency. By this standard it is an abysmal failure. Another species can serve as a bit of a juxtaposition; the American buffalo. Hunted to near extinction, there are now hundreds of thousands of them, and this is the result of private business interest becoming involved.
|
|
The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Struck down bans on interracial marriage.
Struck down laws criminalizing private consensual sex between adults.
Abolished poll taxes.
Your first example is debatable... certainly much good has come of it, but also a number of unintended negative consequences. It is unevenly applied to be certain.
I wonder if institutionalized racism would have faded quicker without this bill. Clearly there was a social movement in that direction. I suppose we will never really know. My opinion is that initially, it improved things far faster than would have happened organically, but that it has also dragged out the problem far longer than it would have lasted organically. I suppose we shall never really know.
Struck down bans on interracial marriage and struck down laws criminalizing private consensual sex between adultsand abolished poll taxes. Striking down laws and regulations it never should have created? If it had not made the problem it would not have to fix it.
I like chocolate milk!
I thought you were a conservative and wanted to reduce the welfare state's role, not increase it. ;-)
Then you thought wrong. I am not a conservative, though I am certainly conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on most.
It isn't about punishment or reward. It is about ensuring that people have what they need to have the best chance of success. One simply needs more support than the other to have an equal chance of success.
Equal chance or best chance? If it is best chance, then you can't argue that not giving aid to one is giving that one the best chance. An equal chance is an illusion, personality ability varies greatly, social network, just having a kid is going to decrease the girl with the child's chance (child gets sick and must be cared for means mother won't get to go to class, etc) unless she doesn't actually get to interact with the child (state takes the child to be raised in child farms).
And yes it is about punishment and reward. If someone does well and makes good choices and you come up and kick them in the crotch (unsubsized student loans), while someone else makes bad decisions and you give them a piece of candy (grants), how this not punishing one for doing good and rewarding the other for doing poorly? Let's look at it from a strickly investment point of view. Which girl is the better investment, which has the higher chance of reward with the least amount of investment? The girl who had a child out of wedlock or the girl who did not? Throwing money at the girl with the child and not giving money to the girl without is a stupid investment philosphy.
That said, a society that wishs to have a successful population really should be investing in higher education as well as secondary education.
I agree with that. But I don't think it is a wise course to invest in the people that are least likely to achieve and not investing in the people that are the most likely to achieve.
Going to the moon... I am having a hard time seeing what benefit that gave us aside from bragging rights. How are peoples lives better for our visit there?
Put a robot on Mars. Who cares? I mean scientifically, it is amazing. Practically, how much did that one robot cost? Was that the best use of those resources?
Firstly, the moon landing were experiments and a learning curve, what did humanity get out of it? They got knowledge of orbitial navigation and the results of the experiments which were undertaken on the moons surface. These things might not aid in the defence of the nation as it were, but they certainly keep the nation worth defending. The lessons learned are one of the many steps that will need to be taken before we can have off-world colonies and we are going to need them eventually.
Putting robots on mars, is teaching us about the formation of planets, it is teaching us about the origins of life. We are talking about a hugely important section of exploration. 'All that money' is a drop in the ocean and it will benifit humanity immensely more than the couple cents it cost individual tax payers.
Ended the Cold War... you mean after they helped start the Cold War?Prevented nuclear war. You mean prevented the use of the weapon they created? One that they used on a civilian population in WWII?
Live in the real world, they were faced with political choices and a series of events, they had to fight the cold war, and you wouldn't have the opertunity to argue that state involvement is a bad thing.
As far as preventing nuclear war, they didn't just prevent it, they won it. In theory, they provided five decades of unprecidented global stability. The research into nuclear strategy oppened up many new avenues of new research.
I thought you were a conservative and wanted to reduce the welfare state's role, not increase it. ;-)Then you thought wrong. I am not a conservative, though I am certainly conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on most.
It isn't about punishment or reward. It is about ensuring that people have what they need to have the best chance of success. One simply needs more support than the other to have an equal chance of success.Equal chance or best chance? If it is best chance, then you can't argue that not giving aid to one is giving that one the best chance. An equal chance is an illusion, personality ability varies greatly, social network, just having a kid is going to decrease the girl with the child's chance (child gets sick and must be cared for means mother won't get to go to class, etc) unless she doesn't actually get to interact with the child (state takes the child to be raised in child farms).
And yes it is about punishment and reward. If someone does well and makes good choices and you come up and kick them in the crotch (unsubsized student loans), while someone else makes bad decisions and you give them a piece of candy (grants), how this not punishing one for doing good and rewarding the other for doing poorly? Let's look at it from a strickly investment point of view. Which girl is the better investment, which has the higher chance of reward with the least amount of investment? The girl who had a child out of wedlock or the girl who did not? Throwing money at the girl with the child and not giving money to the girl without is a stupid investment philosphy.
That said, a society that wishs to have a successful population really should be investing in higher education as well as secondary education.I agree with that. But I don't think it is a wise course to invest in the people that are least likely to achieve and not investing in the people that are the...
Ken Miller has a wonderful anecdote that illustrates this point. He was at Harvard speaking on the subject of evolution and intelligent design, and attempts to maintain science education when one of the audience asked, 'who cares what they teach kids in Alabama and Mississippi'.
Ken thought for a momment and realising he was at Harvard said, 'E. O. Wilson is from Alabama.'
Edward Osborne Wilson is probably the greatest evolutionary biologist to have worked at Harvard.
That girl with a child, may go on to be the next E.O.Wilson. You have no way of judging that. Without the support, she does not stand a chance. Why does she get more help, because she needs more to have an equal chance to shine.
But it goes one step deeper. She might not be the next E.O. Wilson or Ken Miller or Richard Dawkins, but her child might be. She gets the benefits, does collage, she is middle of the road, but it does provide her with a job and her child with better prospects. That child is more likely to be able to develop and make better choices thanks to the help to the mother. So you help the Mother to achieve her potential and you help the child to as well.
Then you thought wrong. I am not a conservative, though I am certainly conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on most.
Heh. Everyone thinks they're a moderate, including Rush Limbaugh and Jeannine Garrofolo. Me, too!
Then you thought wrong. I am not a conservative, though I am certainly conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on most.Heh. Everyone thinks they're a moderate, including Rush Limbaugh and Jeannine Garrofolo. Me, too!
I dont :P
Ken Miller has a wonderful anecdote that illustrates this point. He was at Harvard speaking on the subject of evolution and intelligent design, and attempts to maintain science education when one of the audience asked, 'who cares what they teach kids in Alabama and Mississippi'.
Ken thought for a momment and realising he was at Harvard said, 'E. O. Wilson is from Alabama.'
Edward Osborne Wilson is probably the greatest evolutionary biologist to have worked at Harvard.
That girl with a child, may go on to be the next E.O.Wilson. You have no way of judging that. Without the support, she does not stand a chance. Why does she get more help, because she needs more to have an equal chance to shine.
But it goes one step deeper. She might not be the next E.O. Wilson or Ken Miller or Richard Dawkins, but her child might be. She gets the benefits, does collage, she is middle of the road, but it does provide her with a job and her child with better prospects. That child is more likely to be able to develop and make better choices thanks to the help to the mother. So you help the Mother to achieve her potential and you help the child to as well.
Ok, so you have Woman A, that has a child and then goes to college, and you have Woman B, that doesn't have a child before going to college. Now after 4 years both Women have the same degree (let's assume), yet Woman A has zero debt due to all of her bills being paid for with Grants. Woman B has (we'll be generous) $40,000 of debt + interest on her unsubsized student loans. She has a child, now she is paying for her child and her student loans, and Woman A, oh yeah, no students loans. So how is that an even playing field? Both women have the same degree, both have a child, and yet one has a huge debt to deal with and the other one does not? Shouldn't both have the same debt or the same lack of debt to really have a fair chance?
Ok, so you have Woman A, that has a child and then goes to college, and you have Woman B, that doesn't have a child before going to college. Now after 4 years both Women have the same degree (let's assume), yet Woman A has zero debt due to all of her bills being paid for with Grants. Woman B has (we'll be generous) $40,000 of debt + interest on her unsubsized student loans. She has a child, now she is paying for her child and her student loans, and Woman A, oh yeah, no students loans. So how is that an even playing field? Both women have the same degree, both have a child, and yet one has a huge debt to deal with and the other one does not? Shouldn't both have the same debt or the same lack of debt to really have a fair chance?Ken Miller has a wonderful anecdote that illustrates this point. He was at Harvard speaking on the subject of evolution and intelligent design, and attempts to maintain science education when one of the audience asked, 'who cares what they teach kids in Alabama and Mississippi'.
Ken thought for a momment and realising he was at Harvard said, 'E. O. Wilson is from Alabama.'
Edward Osborne Wilson is probably the greatest evolutionary biologist to have worked at Harvard.
That girl with a child, may go on to be the next E.O.Wilson. You have no way of judging that. Without the support, she does not stand a chance. Why does she get more help, because she needs more to have an equal chance to shine.
But it goes one step deeper. She might not be the next E.O. Wilson or Ken Miller or Richard Dawkins, but her child might be. She gets the benefits, does collage, she is middle of the road, but it does provide her with a job and her child with better prospects. That child is more likely to be able to develop and make better choices thanks to the help to the mother. So you help the Mother to achieve her potential and you help the child to as well.
It is leveling the playing field on oppertunity.
Woman A, almost certainly has no opportunity to get the degree without.
Woman B, has no exceptional impediment to getting the degree.
The point i was forced to defend is a little off what should be happening, in that it should support only as far as to ensure that A, both mother and child have a basic, reasonable standard of welfare and that B, the mother is not impeeded from attending university.
They should come out of their degree in a comparable condition. Ideally, that should be a low level of debt.
|
|
Then you thought wrong. I am not a conservative, though I am certainly conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on most.Heh. Everyone thinks they're a moderate, including Rush Limbaugh and Jeannine Garrofolo. Me, too!
Honestly, have you ever heard me refer to myself as a moderate? :)
Honestly, have you ever heard me refer to myself as a moderate?
One hardcover book, entitled, I'm a Moderate: It's My Bag, Baby, by Derek "Houstonderek" Tallman...
Honestly, have you ever heard me refer to myself as a moderate? :)Then you thought wrong. I am not a conservative, though I am certainly conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on most.Heh. Everyone thinks they're a moderate, including Rush Limbaugh and Jeannine Garrofolo. Me, too!
I believe in moderation in all things, including moderation.
|
|
Honestly, have you ever heard me refer to myself as a moderate?One hardcover book, entitled, I'm a Moderate: It's My Bag, Baby, by Derek "Houstonderek" Tallman...
I suppose if you were to check off my positions on the issues using modern American scaling, I may come off nearly equal on the balance sheet, but I'm not "moderate" on any of the issues, really. :P
This is the hight of nievity.
No charity has to achieve its goals. All they have to do is appear to achieve them.
There is a reason a charities of any real size, have PR and Advertising departments with paid staff.
The only time i have every seen accountability within the charitable sector was while working with government money, where the money had to be accounted for.
Add to the fact that if the tax money that is raised for welfare is not taken in the first place, there is no garentee that the charities would be able to raise the money they would need to fill the gap. It is mathimatically optimal after all to not give to charity and advance your own wealth.
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree where the naivete is placed. You think that charities are not accountable with the money they spend, I disagree, due to personal experience. I think the government is not accountable with they money they spend, you seem to believe they are.
As for paid staff, the charity I worked for was staffed by volunteers for the most part, and had no paid advertising or marketing staff. In fact, I was it for a marketing staff for six months. The reason I had to leave was that I needed to find a paying position. This was a charity whose monetary disbursements to various charitable groups reached into the millions of dollars. You can run a large charity with a minimum of staff and volunteers, it is easy when people care and are passionate about their work.
You had mentioned before that 'most people suck' in one of your previous posts, then why can't you wrap your head around the fact that some people will do ridiculous things like having children just to get benefits? You can argue that it's not a smart thing to do, but when has a teenager ever been accused of long-term thinking? People make that descision all the time, I know, I am friends with people who have made that very descision. I could have made that descision, but I didn't. I have always attempted to be a long-term thinker. I think my forbearance has been validated, as most people my age who have leaned on the government for support now live sh!tty lives. That is an observation from being at their houses, not some academic abstract. They thought it was the easy road, but it is a road fraught with peril.
Welfare will never give anyone other than a minimum to live, but when you are starting out from high school, the government's idea of 'minimum' looks like a good deal, especially if you are a basically lazy person. It is only later when the people who sweated out higher education and the poverty of their post-college years start to reap the benefits of their work, does the welfare-supported life lose its luster.
The issue is that once you stop working, you lose all chance of advancement. Barring cost-of-living adjustments, you are stuck with that life, and it's hard to leave it, especially when you have a child. Some will successfully game the system, get the free degree and move along to their lives. Others will crumble under the unexpected burden of childrearing, drop out and just decide to stay at home, collecting the check and feeling ever more desperate.
Desperation and hopelessness are the true 'gateway drugs' and with the ease that folks procure pills these days, it is all too easy to get the government to fund your drug habit as well. I see it now, where instead of marijuanna and other drugs, teenagers are taking Percosets, Vicodin and Oxycontin for recreation now. Once again, this is not quoting a statistic, this is direct experience. It is not just the teens, they are getting these drugs from people my age with 'maladies' that obtain them a narcotic perscription. They sell off their surplus to gain a little extra folding money. Why not? They can always get a refill. How has it gone from illegal to perscription drugs as the recreational choice in a 20-year span? Pure economics. The perscriptions are subsidized.
I suppose if you were to check off my positions on the issues using modern American scaling, I may come off nearly equal on the balance sheet, but I'm not "moderate" on any of the issues, really. :PHonestly, have you ever heard me refer to myself as a moderate?One hardcover book, entitled, I'm a Moderate: It's My Bag, Baby, by Derek "Houstonderek" Tallman...
Ain't that the truth. You're very left on most social issues and when it comes to government you're so far right you even make me look like a socialist. ;)
you even make me look like a socialist. ;)
Git a rope! Gary's gone Commie!