double post.

2

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2006 2:00:21 PM

Quote :

"what the fuck did he do yesterday?"

he just gave a pretty good speech on the immigrant issue, granting amnesty, guest worker program, all of that.

4/25/2006 2:05:15 PM

Quote :

"I lived in Morehead City all of my life. I've been through dozens of hurricanes. Not once has my family received a check from FEMA. "

no, you just enjoyed subsidized insurance rates

4/25/2006 2:10:20 PM

The government subsidizes insurance rates in Morehead City, NC? That would be news to me. I honestly don't know if this is true or not. Guth, show me your sources.

4/25/2006 2:12:59 PM

nfip

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2006 2:15:15 PM

don't know what that means

4/25/2006 2:30:15 PM

National Flood Insurance Program - nfip

4/25/2006 2:58:57 PM

^ Before that federal program existed insurance companies used to offer flood insurance. You know, those people that rebuild your house if it burns down or gets knocked down in a storm.

When my parents house had its roof knocked in by Hurricane Fran it wasn't the government that fixed it, it was our insurance company.

Quote :

"everyone needs a hand from the government sometimes when shit goes wrong."

No they don't, that's what insurance is for. The government will not help unless it has been declared a national disaster. As such, if only your house was crushed by a freak storm then you'll get no help what-so-ever unless you have home-owners insurance.

Which is fine with some people. Like a famous industrialist of the 18th century once said, if the insurance company can make money insurring my property then so can I. As such, they don't have insurance by choice; they could afford it, but would rather spend the money on a new car. By having the government rebuild the homes of the uninsured what reason do people have to make sensible decisions about where to build, what to build, and what precautions (insurance) to take?

The folly of statists is to believe that if the government does not do it then nothing will be done.

4/25/2006 3:20:39 PM

Very well said, well said indeed. The problem we have is that since the New Deal and since the Great Society, we've created a populace of dependants. We really don't know what it's like to do for ourselves anymore because for all our lives, Big Brother has been right there. We need to move from that towards independence and insuring our own lives and not expecting someone to pick up after us and fix us a ham sandwich at lunch.

4/25/2006 3:27:34 PM

You all realize that you are basing your opinions on your own conjecture about how insurance and the government works, right?

4/25/2006 3:31:23 PM

or maybe. JUST MAYBE, this culture of dependence was created because of the great depression and the new deal was a response to it. fdr didnt just wake up and decide to implement the new deal in 1915.

4/25/2006 3:31:23 PM

News flash: the great depression is over. We no longer need new deal shit left over from the 30s or Great Society programs from the 60s. Thx guys, give us our money back now.

^^ NO, that is how the government works. They take my money. Then they give people shit that they could do for themselves or do without, if they decided it wasn't worth it.

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ^]

4/25/2006 3:36:04 PM

first, you make the assumption that our country would still be here if we got rid of the new deal policies that you are railing against, while completely ignoring the fact that many aspects of the new deal were temporary (we dont have squads of government employees building useless things anymore)

second, this "if i can do it alone so can they" is not only wrong its fucking stupid. people dont fail to feed themselves because they are lazy. people are not rich because they are the greatest people in the world. history and societal structures have a large effect. people from all backgrounds are lazy or hardworking.

4/25/2006 3:39:12 PM

So really, what's so fucking wrong with weeding out the lazy ones? I bet you $100 if these programs didn't exist, and they figured out they werent' eating unless they worked... they'd have a job tomorrow.

But no, since all these programs are in place and I have to go to the damn grocery store and watch them swipe a motherfucking food stamps card buying more food and better food than I have in my basket which I am paying for with my own money... there's something fucking wrong with that.

I should say "you're welcome" to every person doing that. Because I'm fucking paying for his groceries and mine.

4/25/2006 3:43:39 PM

you really dont get it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/welfarereform/

read that and get back to me about those "lazy" people ok?

4/25/2006 3:46:39 PM

you didnt know many poor families growing up in CC did you?

Most of my friends there live in trailer parks.

BUT FUCK THEM.

your bitching is annoying.

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 3:47 PM. Reason : workfare is a great idea, btw]

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2006 3:47:26 PM

There are lots of poor people. My parents worked every goddamn hour of the day to give me and my siblings what we had. So shut the fuck up. My mom busted her ass to put food on the table. My dad was gone during the day, my mom worked the nights. We made it work.

I'm not saying that we should nix all government help. I'm saying that the system needs to be massively reformed because we have a culture of dependent people.

4/25/2006 3:53:12 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Last year, Congress began the process of reauthorizing the historic, bipartisan 1996 welfare reform law. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, welfare reform helped to move 4.7 million Americans from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency within three years of enactment, and the number of welfare caseloads has declined by 54% since 1996. The 1996 welfare reform law expired at the end of last year. President Bush is calling on Congress to act now to sustain and expand on the success of welfare reform. President Bush proposes to make welfare even more focused on the well-being of children and supportive of families. The President's plan is designed to strengthen families and help more welfare recipients work toward independence and self-reliance. The President's welfare reform plan will: * Help more welfare recipients achieve independence through work. * Increase the welfare-to-work resources available for families. * Protect children and strengthen families. * Empower states to seek new and innovative solutions to help welfare recipients achieve independence. "

Wow, those talking points sure did shut me the fuck up.

4/25/2006 3:56:49 PM

Quote :

"There are lots of poor people. My parents worked every goddamn hour of the day to give me and my siblings what we had. So shut the fuck up. My mom busted her ass to put food on the table. My dad was gone during the day, my mom worked the nights. We made it work. I'm not saying that we should nix all government help. I'm saying that the system needs to be massively reformed because we have a culture of dependent people."

yourself included apparently

4/25/2006 4:32:53 PM

That's a pretty good comeback. Yeah, my parents had to bust ass for what we had.




You're a witty boy.

4/25/2006 4:34:29 PM

unfortunately, not all of us have parents there to bust ass for us. im glad those of us dont always have to pay for their shitty habits.

im just sick of this "lazy welfare bitches" argument that has come out of katrina. i mean, reform is one thing, stripping programs is another, and creating false stories like the ones about the refugees offered jobs who turned them down do get checks is just garbage.

4/25/2006 4:43:26 PM

and guess what. their busting ass provided what? living hand to mouth and a good enough home life to give you and your siblings a quality education.
im not trying to bust on your parents, but if they worked as much as you say they did dont you think they should have been rewarded with something more than the fat fuck who lives off his parents hard work was rewarded with?

OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT REWARD HARD WORK. sit down and shut up about "welfare reform" that was taken care of 10 years ago.

4/25/2006 4:47:41 PM

Quote :

"but if they worked as much as you say they did dont you think they should have been rewarded with something more than the fat fuck who lives off his parents hard work was rewarded with?"

Yes. Absolutely. My parents were rewarded. My parents have 3 kids that are sane, who are in college (I'm graduated, the first in my short American lineage to graduate... my dad is the child of an Italian immigrant, my mother the grandchild of an italian immigrant). We came to this country in the early 1900s and in just 3 generations, produced college educated children.

That's the result of busting ass. That is the reward. To give your children a home without relying on anyone else but our family. And that will be my reward for working the rest of my life away. I want to give my children everything I didn't have.

4/25/2006 4:50:32 PM

how is your college paid for?
how was your elementary school education paid for?


again, your parents worked hard enough that if they had started at the same place as everyone else they would currently be rich. they did not, and i am sure that they have spent most of their life at the same level of wealth.

if you dont want to change our system that is fine, but to argue for what you are arguing for with your background is insane.

4/25/2006 4:54:54 PM

No, I enforce my point of view with my background. We made it. I went to college. Why can't other people? Why do they have their hands out while my family bit the bullet and went to work?

Again, I'm not saying get rid of social programs (and I didn't say anything about the education system). What I am saying is that when a woman is busting her ass to put food on her 3 kids' plates and she's not making ends meet, then help her out. Feed them. Especially when children are involved. What I am saying is that we have to get away expecting the government to be there over and over and over. When a man can do for himself, he should. That should be our primary philosophy.

4/25/2006 5:02:53 PM

seriously, though. we've got some selfish people on these boards. thank God the oil companies are paying such high taxes. and i'm still trying to figure out how in the world exxon paid 3x its profits in taxes. that's a helluva effective corporate tax rate. or they've cooked their GAP accounting so much that their reported earnings are way below what they're taxable earnings are.

and nfip was put in place because insurance companies were beginning to refuse flood coverage for many places, including eastern NC. but whatever.

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ...]

4/25/2006 5:07:01 PM

guys you are arguing about insurance with someone who didnt know what nfip was (or why they needed it)

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2006 5:09:17 PM

NEW RULE: YOU MUST KNOW EVERY ACRONYM OR UR DUM

4/25/2006 5:22:02 PM

not knowing an acronym and not knowing about something are different

4/25/2006 5:27:03 PM

Quote :

"OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT REWARD HARD WORK."

You're damn right about that. But not in the way you intended.

Our government does not reward hard work.

The free market does, however. When you finally graduate, get a job and see how things work in the real world. Then you'll understand.

For now, you look at your studies on cycles of poverty and how poor people never seem to rise up into the upper class, and you assume the typical liberal bullshit that it's SOOO TOUGH to move up in society. Every year thousands upon thousands of immigrants without a dollar in their name, even those with poor language and education skills, find a way to ascend the social ladder through hard work. The unemployment rate for immigrants even when including illegal immigrants is lower than that of the general population, despite the huge obstacles they face in landing decent jobs. You know why? Because the vast majority of immigrants come here to work, and they work hard. So don't give me that bullshit about hard work not being rewarded.


[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 5:34 PM. Reason : 2]

4/25/2006 5:32:09 PM

i bet you cant prove it
and im not even disagreeing with you, i just bet you cant prove it. its just stuff you've heard from all of your bigoted friends.

4/25/2006 5:34:20 PM

I read a study on that a few weeks ago. It was from the CIS. I'll try to look it up.

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 5:40 PM. Reason : 2]

4/25/2006 5:35:13 PM

i'll save you some time, you won't find it



[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 5:46 PM. Reason : i like how you changed your source from the cdc, i was wondering if you would catch that]

4/25/2006 5:36:40 PM

Ok, there is a little too much irrationality in this thread. While I recognize there are moral arguments against most government programs, I'd be happy if they at least justified their existance.

National Flood Insurance is perfectly constitutional. Hell, it may even be a good idea. We can fix this program by using some sense while setting premiums (a guy in Texas has had his beach-front mansion rebuilt six times in 10 years). My problem is with blanket rebuilding plans, funded by the Federal Government, for rebuilding stuff that wasn't insurred.

Bad things happen sometimes. However, it doesn't make sense for the government to be a free national insurance agency, taxing everyone (including the struggling poor) to rebuild the mansions of the rich, and justifying the behavior as an attempt to rebuild the homes of the poor. It creates perverse incentives to build where you shouldn't, rebuild where you now know you shouldn't. Like has been said, such a program may cost lives, it definitely costs a lot of money.

If you could fix the system so that it could only be utilized by the poor then you'd have me. But I've seen the system just too abused by the rich to justify its existance.

Not to mention, evidently 40,000 buildings insurred by the NFIP, a small percentage of the policies held, consume about 36 percent of all program claims historically thanks to repetitive flooding. Kinda absurd.

Jon, are you doubting the story about immigrants having a lower unemployment rate? (Because it was all over the news last month or so)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=135850
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/economy/jobs_immigrants/index.htm

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : links]

4/25/2006 5:54:53 PM

Quote :

" its just stuff you've heard from all of your bigoted friends."

So I've heard from all of my bigoted friends that immigrants work harder than native-born Americans? Wow, that's pretty stupid, even by your standards Guth.

PS, here's a news article from business week you should look at:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2006/04/immigrants_have.html

 Unemployment rate   
                             Native-born Foreign-born 
     
Overall                         5.2     4.6  
     
Less than high school         9.1     5.7  
High school grads             4.8     4.3  
Some college or associate     3.9    3.7  
Bachelor's degree or higher   2.2   3.1  
     
White non-hispanic          4.1    3.8  
Black non-hispanic          10.5   6.6  
Asian non-hispanic          4.2     3.9  
Hispanic                         7.2     5  
     
16-24                           11.7   7.8  
25-34                           5.3     4.4  
35-44                           3.9     3.8  
45-54                           3.4     4.2  
55-64                           3.1     5.1  
65 and over                    3.4     4.2 

4/25/2006 5:57:26 PM

Its really hard to immigrate legally without having a job here already

4/25/2006 6:19:21 PM

It is really hard to immigrate legally. Having a job or specialized training helps but the majority of legal immigrants don't have a job when they come here.

ps

Quote :

"The bureau's numbers don't distinguish between those non-citizens who are working here legally and those here illegally. "

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 6:29 PM. Reason : 2]

4/25/2006 6:28:17 PM

Quote :

"i bet you cant prove it"

owned.

Quote :

"its just stuff you've heard from all of your bigoted friends."

that statement is just so idiotic I can't even respond.

Guth owned on multiple fronts.

4/25/2006 6:46:58 PM

I think Prawn star's post about the free market rewarding hard work is excellent.

I'm not claiming that luck isn't sometimes involved. It's a lot like poker, really. In the short-term, luck and circumstances help out a great deal, but in the long term you can build yourself up from nothing with enough hard work and a little luck. My parents were so poor when they got married that they had to pawn most of their possessions even though they both had bachelor's degrees. For years my dad worked 12-15 hours a day to make ends meet. My mom worked 2 jobs. Now they're upper-middle class and they're doing great.

I don't think the free-market system works perfectly and that every hard worker will make it. However, its an assload better than ANY governmental system, no matter how well devised.

4/25/2006 6:47:41 PM

Quote :

"Jon, are you doubting the story about immigrants having a lower unemployment rate? (Because it was all over the news last month or so)"

no, i just really wanted to see that cdc study on the subject

and brian is mad i made him look stupid about insurance

4/25/2006 6:59:10 PM

and Jon has to keep on about how you said cdc because he can't back himself up with anything substantive.

4/25/2006 7:02:41 PM

um... where habei not backed myself up
i'll be happy to fix that

4/25/2006 7:03:29 PM

Quote :

"no, i just really wanted to see that cdc study on the subject"

he made you look dumb about employment stats... you insult his use of the wrong agency (a typo)

4/25/2006 7:04:58 PM

i never disagreed with what he was saying (about the statistics, not some of the other stuff), i just challenged him to support it

4/25/2006 7:08:58 PM

orly?

Quote :

"i'll save you some time, you won't find it"

That statement reeks of "I don't believe a word you said and you won't be able to support it because the information simply does not exist."

4/25/2006 7:10:06 PM

yes, at first (before his edit, when i replied) he was looking for a cdc report
he wasnt going to find it


the reasoning should be obvious

4/25/2006 7:11:12 PM

well confusion abounds. If your statement was meant as sarcastic, then ok. It's still a bitch move.

Lets finish talking about how we can make poor people poorer

4/25/2006 7:14:09 PM

poorly regulated welfare programs

4/25/2006 7:15:35 PM

so we have the same people who have railed against the us not being a free market system now saying that because a free market system rewards hard work so does america? am i missing something or did i get you guys confused with each other?

Quote :

"We decompose mobility into mobility between and within groups of individuals with the same observable characteristics, and find that both the level of mobility and changes in it are driven by within-group mobility. Within-group mobility rises most rapidly over horizons up to four years and, even in our longest horizon of ten years, does not approach the level that would imply perfect equality among observationally equivalent workers. This suggests that, although an important part of wage or earnings inequality is due to short-term shocks that do not persist, the larger part is due to longer-term causes. When individuals with zero earnings are included in the earnings distribution, mobility falls or stays the same. Since we establish that mobility is predominantly within-group mobility, we focus in the remainder of the paper on that part of mobility. Specifically, we estimate year-to-year transition probabilities between quintiles as well as the probabilities of moving in and out of the wage (and earnings) distribution. This allows us to characterize explicitly where in the distribution individuals are moving."

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS , By: Buchinsky, Moshe, Hunt, Jennifer, Review of Economics & Statistics, 0034-6535, August 1, 1999, Vol. 81, Issue 3

now, unless im missing something (again) the key phrase here is WITHIN GROUP MOBILITY.

Quote :

"We use data from surveys of employers and households in four metropolitan areas to predict the degree of job availability for various types of disadvantaged workers, such as minorities, high school dropouts, and welfare recipients. We conduct simulations in which we “match” workers to jobs on the basis of skill, spatial, and racial characteristics of each. Our results show that roughly 9 to 17 percent of actual or potential jobseekers are likely to have difficulty finding work, even in tight labor markets. Simulated mismatch rates for disadvantaged workers are considerably higher. We conclude that disadvantaged workers face quite limited job availability, at least in the short run. The wages and benefits for jobs available to these workers are also quite low."

Are Jobs Available for Disadvantaged Workers in Urban Areas?
Harry J. Holzer (hjh4@georgetown.edu) and S. Danziger
Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers from University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty


Now, I have not had time to fully look through these studies, but a small amount of quick research shows (in my opinion of course) that this line about the poor being lazy is bullshit.

4/25/2006 7:52:51 PM

Has anyone actually said the poor were lazy?

4/25/2006 8:04:46 PM