^we need to cut some programs. We dont HAVE to raise taxes.

11/17/2007 11:17:46 AM

^Fuck!

Bush is a genius.

Spend so much money that the only way to make up for it is by cutting programs.

11/17/2007 3:25:00 PM

^ yes because the first step of SAVING money is to not spend so much.

Got that?

11/17/2007 5:44:36 PM

^I'm familiar with the concept.

Bush is just like a shitty parent.

He bought a sports car for him and his best friend to fuck around in and now he doesn't wanna feed his kids.

The only difference is Bush should definitely know better.

I realize this analogy establishes the government as a parent of sorts, but I think it works.

11/18/2007 9:14:13 AM

Well I wont argue that bush is great or anything. And I am mad at him for spending. However, Im curious as to what you consider the new sports car, and who isnt feeding kids.

I would just like to see LESS govt. Its real easy for many to claim we need this program and that program, more funding, etc... but then say "use someone elses money", either by taxing the "rich" or sin taxes. I think we are pouring more and money into investing in a subclass were we arent seeing any returns. We need to approach it in a different way, bc the current way isnt working,and giving more handouts and expecting that that will somehow teach independence, other than dependence is beyond me.

Just what I feel/see. I am curious about your analogy.

11/18/2007 10:48:01 AM

we should put the war on a credit card

11/18/2007 10:57:00 AM

I think we already did.

The First People's Republic of China National Bank Platinum Select with Air Force one Miles*


*Annual Fee of looking the other way while we inundate your country with cheap, unsafe goods may apply

11/18/2007 10:59:07 AM

^^ look this war didnt bankrupt this country. We have had a HUGE national debt for ages. That doesnt make it right, but its the truth.

11/18/2007 11:23:15 AM

If you take away the overspending post 9/11 (homeland "security", war, and other fear-mongering inspired spending), what's our annual budget deficit?

11/18/2007 11:38:44 AM

Look, im not saying you dont have a point. However, its ridiculous to think you can sent your money to only go to programs you support.

What would our defiect be if you took out the medicare drug plan, fixed SS, limited medicare, had welfare reform?

To me the war is a short term financial pain. The growing entitlement society is more of a threat to the long term security and productivity of this country. IMHO

11/18/2007 11:51:22 AM

aha nice use of font up there bobby

11/18/2007 12:46:31 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: Well I wont argue that bush is great or anything. And I am mad at him for spending. However, Im curious as to what you consider the new sports car, and who isnt feeding kids."

It was a silly analogy. Pretty easy to understand though.

Quote :

"eyedrb: Its real easy for many to claim we need this program and that program, more funding, etc... but then say "use someone elses money", either by taxing the "rich" or sin taxes."

No, it's not "real easy." It's difficult to go against your immediate self-interest. Nevermind that other people hate taxes, too.

In my opinion, it's much easier to cloak your racism, your classism, your greed in this notion of fiscal responsibility. I have a much stronger sense of moral responsibility. For example, I believe it's wrong and beneath us to send men and women into war without the very best in equipment, training, planning, etc... I think it's wrong and beneath us to let sick children go untreated, to let hungry people starve, to let folks without homes freeze...

Of course, we can't go throwing money at shit that doesn't work/help. The dirty little secret about public education is that it's not the money. You can drop a hundred million dollar school with well-compensated teachers in a poor neighborhood, and everything else the same, the kids will still fail.

Quote :

"eyedrb: I think we are pouring more and money into investing in a subclass were we arent seeing any returns. We need to approach it in a different way, bc the current way isnt working,and giving more handouts and expecting that that will somehow teach independence, other than dependence is beyond me. Just what I feel/see. I am curious about your analogy."

1. I don't think we spend that much money on welfare.
2. I've never really expected a "return" on that money. For me, that money just makes up for what our economic system fails to do.
3. I agree with you that throwing money at a problem without considering different approaches is irrespsonible (and wrong, in that "moral" sense I mentioned earlier).

11/18/2007 12:59:19 PM

Quote :

"bc the current way isnt working,and giving more handouts and expecting that that will somehow teach independence, "

I am not big fan of welfare and people abusing the system leeching off the free handouts really pisses me off. There is one thing though that a lot of people here forget on their anti-welfare/fuck lazy people/the poor deserve it rants. Part of the rationale behind programs like welfare and food stamps is not b.c a bunch of politicians in DC feeling all bubbly and warm helping the struggling poor people. Part of it has to do with crime and a lot more has to do with reinforcing stability. Inherently most people in congress would probably not think twice about someone starving in the street.

Having a large population of hungry, poor, unemployed people is very destabilizing. The people backing the rise of a lot of the communists gov't during the 20th century were from the working and underprivileged classes who were usually shitted upon by the well off aristocracy. I am certain this is the rationale that allows Fiscally Conservative minded politicians to keep the current status quo as far as welfare goes. I am sure to that there are bleeding heart liberal that really do give a fuck also. Good for them for looking out for humanity but i don't want any more of my taxes going to subsidize andre on his foodstamps so that he has extra cash for those 22" rims.

11/18/2007 2:37:15 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion, it's much easier to cloak your racism, your classism, your greed in this notion of fiscal responsibility. I have a much stronger sense of moral responsibility."

You're kidding, right? You're not seriously making this argument?

Because I think going by that logic, a viable argument could be made for your own condescending version of racism and "classism" (as well as another word, elitism and smug sense of moral superiority), given that these benighted people are somehow unable to survive without your "generous" compulsion of others.

11/18/2007 2:55:23 PM

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: You're kidding, right? You're not seriously making this argument?"

It's not really an argument. I'm just pointing out that, while there are plenty of people who believe in small government and don't trust the government with a dime, there are others who are just racist, classist, greedy assholes.

You could show them how investing one dollar in a program today will save the government a hundred dollars in twenty years, and they'll still oppose the program.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Because I think going by that logic, a viable argument could be made for your own condescending version of racism and "classism" (as well as another word, elitism and smug sense of moral superiority), given that these benighted people are somehow unable to survive without your "generous" compulsion of others."

This argument is pathetic.

As far as my moral superiority goes, it's my sense of moral responsibilty. There are other people who feel a moral obligation to oppose public programs, and I respect that. I do not respect the people who are opposed based on money--we're one of the richest countries in the world...money should NEVER be the excuse when we're talking about people suffering for just some basics.

As far as the implication that I'm putting struggling folks down by assuming they can't survive without aid...all you need to do is look at the numbers. Look at the wages, the cost of housing, the cost of children, the cost of basic survival shit...you do the math. Sometimes people need some help.

Anyway, our economic system has worked so brilliantly. I can go to the store and choose between 30 different types of toothpaste...that's a beautiful thing. It has worked so well for so many people, but still for others it has failed. And we need to be prepared to reconcile that reality. If you're not on board with that, if you want to eliminate social programs, then I suggest you build a time machine. Go back before FDR. Have fun working your way up from sharecropper.

11/18/2007 5:30:17 PM

Quote :

"classism"

I'd claim myself to be a classest and not afraid to admit it. Good for you though for pulling yourself through college so you do not have to be a working class commoner like your parents living in the trailer park.

I often make comments that some people interpret as racist. This is incorrect b.c i feel like the capability to act "civilized" be "productive" and "successful" is not a biological trait that is inherited such as race. I have a problem with ignorance, lazy, and/or crude people of any race. Every race has the "prejorative" term for these people but crossing the racial barrier with these terms is considered "racist" by the target racial group no matter what the context.

Quote :

"'m just pointing out that, while there are plenty of people who believe in small government and don't trust the government with a dime, t"

I actually never thought about the economic conservatism argument for elminating welfare this way. Not that I want my paycheck going to pay for crack whores but i always considered those bitching about welfare to just be greedy (though it is justified since they did work to make money).

[Edited on November 18, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : l]

11/18/2007 8:01:05 PM

Brid, I know its an analogy. Im asking what you consider the new sports car, and the hungry kids. ala the sports car is the war?

Cloak my racism, greed, classism? WTF are you talking about. When did responsibility and productivity become a race or class issue. LOL. Its clear you will never run a business successfully if you really feel that way.

Quote :

"I think it's wrong and beneath us to let sick children go untreated, to let hungry people starve, to let folks without homes freeze... "

What country are you talking about? Honestly, do you believe half the shit you type?

11/18/2007 8:30:44 PM

Quote :

"responsibility and productivity become a race or class"

Well to be fair their is a correlation between class and the responsibility/productivity of a person.

11/18/2007 9:16:19 PM

^but race? Yes usually the more responsible the more educated the more successful, the inverse also applies.

11/18/2007 9:24:10 PM

Quote :

"It's not really an argument. I'm just pointing out that, while there are plenty of people who believe in small government and don't trust the government with a dime, there are others who are just racist, classist, greedy assholes."

It's a classic guilt-by-association argument, and it's a lousy one. You're attempting to tar an ideology through association with unsavory elements.

Quote :

"This argument is pathetic."

Good, because it's your logic we're working with. I'm glad we're in such solid agreement as to how utterly specious the idea of guilt-by-association logic works.

Quote :

"As far as my moral superiority goes, it's my sense of moral responsibilty."

Let's rewind the tapes. You said:

Quote :

"I have a much stronger sense of moral responsibility."

Perhaps you can explain to the rest of the audience how this does not come off as smug self-satisfaction.

Quote :

"There are other people who feel a moral obligation to oppose public programs, and I respect that. I do not respect the people who are opposed based on money--we're one of the richest countries in the world...money should NEVER be the excuse when we're talking about people suffering for just some basics."

So, how about efficacy? Black, white, somewhere in the middle? How about the feeling like people should have a choice in how they part with their money? Greed, racism, classism, or some other evil "ism" you'd care to employ for the purpose? How about the feeling like the virtue of helping others comes only when it's voluntary, rather than compulsory?

Making an awful lot of assumptions about a wide class of people, aren't we?

Quote :

"As far as the implication that I'm putting struggling folks down by assuming they can't survive without aid...all you need to do is look at the numbers. Look at the wages, the cost of housing, the cost of children, the cost of basic survival shit...you do the math. Sometimes people need some help."

Oh, no one is denying that people sometime need assistance, and certainly it is our duty to help. The argument that entire groups of people couldn't survive without the aid of the White Man's paternal benevolence has been employed in history, however - and I'm quite certain you wouldn't deny the inherent racism associated with it. Hence the problem when you attempt to smear an policy with guilt-by-association of its lesser constituents - no one comes out clean.

Quote :

"If you're not on board with that, if you want to eliminate social programs, then I suggest you build a time machine. Go back before FDR. Have fun working your way up from sharecropper."

I've got an even better idea, something we don't even need a magical time machine for. It's called, "Let's use that high school diploma to crack open a history book." And so we see, despite the very best efforts of FDR, LBJ, and others to use the government as a force to eradicate poverty, it has failed utterly. What little success we've had in raising the general standard of living in this country has been in the growth of the private sector and the work of individuals. Each government program we've had that has supposed to have "eliminated" poverty has failed, if not completely backfired. (Don't believe me? Look at inflation statistics in the 70's.)

Of course, perhaps we're just not fighting hard enough. (After all, that's what they said about Vietnam, right?)

11/18/2007 9:37:28 PM

So what do yall think about low wage workers? You do realize that without a lot of these people doing jobs that no one else wants to do, a lot of jobs that affect you every day wouldn't be getting done. Fast food, agriculture, and countless other jobs rely on paying people too little to live comfortably. These people work just as hard as a lot of people who earn much more money than they do. Should we just let society shit on them or should we help them out? There is a difference between someone who doesn't work at all and someone who works 40 hours a week and still struggles to get by. Those types of situations do exist and if you say you just don't give a damn about those people it makes you look like an asshole. If someone actually works for a living, they shouldn't have to worry about paying for basic things like food, shelter, health care. They're contributing to society, it's just that the particular industry that employs them can only exist by paying them less than they need to live comfortably.

11/18/2007 9:40:25 PM

It's a fair question - I think the best question to ask is, "What policy would most effectively aid these individuals?"

One of the problems with our system is the incentive gap - our goal is to encourage people to obtain gainful employment and not sit around and milk the system. (Ultimately a fair goal). But part of the problem is that getting a lousy job can mean getting less than you were getting with assistance. So, getting a job, even if it's a transitional one or one necessary to build higher skills, acts against one's own economic interests - you end up poorer as a result.

There's lots of ideas out there. Some people favor raising the minimum wage. The problem here is that you price workers out of the market and drive up inflation - ultimately mooting the point. A few lucky individuals may benefit, but far more won't.

One of the better policy proposals out there is a negative income tax - implemented in some form with Clinton's Earned Income Credit. In essence, one simply gets more money than they put in at tax time (i.e., a "negative tax"). This can be scaled to income and thus provide a more level transition of income, reducing the discentive from getting a job and/or more gainful employment.

11/18/2007 9:45:55 PM

^^I have ALWAYS said that we need to place value on people. Right now our government favors non-workers. Our working poor should be allowed to get temporary assistance. But lets be honest, the govt should not be bailing out people's bad choices. There is a reason why someone is in a low skilled/low pay job. You can try to legislate that a McDs worker should have the same lifestyle as a CEO of Dell, but it will only encourage people from becoming a CEO of Dell. Do you follow me?

The most frustrating thing I see in healthcare, is when I have a patient that needs a procedure and we call to try to get him some temp. assistance with a medical problem. The FIRST thing they always say, "just tell him to quit working", then we can help them. Its totally upside down. And total bullshit.

Chaos, how about making welfare pay half of min wage? Or having public housing be subject to inspections for drugs, guns, etc.?

[Edited on November 18, 2007 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2007 9:48:31 PM

Personally, I think there are better options than public housing to start with. I mean, the fact that such places are notorious breeding grounds of crime, drugs, and violence would indicate that consolidating poverty into one big tenement may not be the very best idea out there. Instead, if we're going to do housing assistance, why not just do it the way many other cities do it, with vouchers?

And that being said, I think the best idea for a transition from welfare to work should be to make it as relatively seamless as possible. Ideally, one should experience some nominal gain moving from one to the other (thus providing the incentive), wherein the aid can be gradually reduced as one's income rises.

11/18/2007 9:56:39 PM

Quote :

"One of the problems with our system is the incentive gap - our goal is to encourage people to obtain gainful employment and not sit around and milk the system. (Ultimately a fair goal). But part of the problem is that getting a lousy job can mean getting less than you were getting with assistance. So, getting a job, even if it's a transitional one or one necessary to build higher skills, acts against one's own economic interests - you end up poorer as a result."

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think this is true. The lowest you can make working full time at minimum wage is like, what, $15000? How much can you make on straight up welfare? $12000? Maybe if you factor in the need to actually work to make the $15k some people will choose the welfare, but it's still 20% less money.

I think part of the problem is just how fucking retarded society is in general. When I see stuck up little bitches getting carried into a grand ball room on a goose down bed for their 16th birthday party on MTV, that kind of pisses me off. Because even if I work hard, that 1 party costs more than I'll probably make in a year. Where is the responsibility of the parent for not turning their kid into a complete fucking bitch? That rich person has just messed up society worse than a poor person could by creating one more Paris Hilton clone because they aren't very responsible with their money. That might be their choice, but that doesn't make it the right one. If it weren't for all the idiots who do have money spending it so frivolously and without care, then maybe people without money wouldn't unrealistically expect so many things. I think the fact that some people are so much more wealthy than other people creates a lot of social problems.

11/18/2007 9:57:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think this is true. The lowest you can make working full time at minimum wage is like, what, $15000? How much can you make on straight up welfare? $12000? Maybe if you factor in the need to actually work to make the $15k some people will choose the welfare, but it's still 20% less money."

Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume $6/hour, 52 weeks a year. That's only $12,480, and that doesn't include taxes. Income tax will be nominal, and we'll assume it all comes back. That still requires 6.5% in payroll taxes, plus any other state and local taxes. That takes the sum down to $11,668.80 - not exactly stacking up favorably.

I confess that I don't know the numbers for welfare. But either way, the fact that there's an incentive gap between welfare and working can create a serious problem.

Quote :

"I think part of the problem is just how fucking retarded society is in general. When I see stuck up little bitches getting carried into a grand ball room on a goose down bed for their 16th birthday party on MTV, that kind of pisses me off. ... If it weren't for all the idiots who do have money spending it so frivolously and without care, then maybe people without money wouldn't unrealistically expect so many things. I think the fact that some people are so much more wealthy than other people creates a lot of social problems."

This is more an indictment of the inefficacy of the estate tax and the broader structure of the tax system itself in general more than anything else. What we tax (and don't tax) can have pretty perverse incentives for how wealth is made and conserved.

11/18/2007 10:07:01 PM

Quote :

"I have ALWAYS said that we need to place value on people. Right now our government favors non-workers. Our working poor should be allowed to get temporary assistance. But lets be honest, the govt should not be bailing out people's bad choices. There is a reason why someone is in a low skilled/low pay job. You can try to legislate that a McDs worker should have the same lifestyle as a CEO of Dell, but it will only encourage people from becoming a CEO of Dell. Do you follow me?"

I hope you don't actually think that's what I'm advocating, because at that level of stupidity I lose all respect for anything else you try to argue. I believe I explicitly stated that someone who works should be entitled to basic rights, such as food, housing, and health care. Everything else is discretionary spending that they can use their money for, I don't give a damn what they spend it on.

Who says that working at McDonald's is based solely on someone's bad choices in life? I guarantee that not everyone who works at one is there because they made bad choices. Maybe they lived in a town with a shitty school that failed them and it was a choice between McD's and Burger King? Maybe they're just not smart enough to go to college and had to find a job somewhere? You don't know. But they work for a living and they don't make enough to afford basic necessities.

And I call bullshit on government favoring non-workers right now. If the government favored non-workers then all those things that have benefited the super rich wouldn't have happened. The government has definitely favored the super rich over the last 6 years.

And once again, I am not in favor of giving handouts. That's stupid. But I don't think anyone who works should ever have to worry about paying for basic needs.

11/18/2007 10:12:25 PM

i just don't think the poor should get my hard earned money when they do nothing for it.

11/19/2007 10:09:09 AM

^^I dont understand your arguement. I work, but I pay for my food, house, and healthcare. Shoudl I expect the govt to take care of those for me?

My point is that govt take and takes while you are being productive. It gives and gives when you arent. Chaos is right on the incentive to not work and be irresponsible. Yes, welfare might not pay much, but factor in free housing, food, daycare, gas money, healthcare..you are doing alright. Then get on disability, have a couple kids and get them on disability you can make a damn good, tax free income leaching the system.

You nailed it on the McDs example. There is a reason why they work a low pay hourly job. You dont think they can make ends meet on hourly pay? Its a wonder how so many did for so long, oh but that was before credit cards and bad decisions became everyone elses problem. The girls that work at our practice, all but one drives a newer car than me. I know I make a great deal more money, and hear them bitch about not making enough, but some of it is thier bad decisions. IE credit card debt and big car payments.

420, what exactly do you think favored the rich over the last 6 yrs?

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 10:14:22 AM

Quote :

"When I see stuck up little bitches getting carried into a grand ball room on a goose down bed for their 16th birthday party on MTV"

yeah dude I nearly get enraged when watching that show at how stuck up, spoiled, and arrogant those girl are. I just want to grab them out of the TV, stick it in there butt, then blow my load all over their back. Maybe that will get them to shut teh fuck up.

11/19/2007 11:07:53 AM

back to topic though; social policy is kinda like engineering. Someone knowledgable has to choose the right policy to maximize the net benefit to a society as a whole and like everything their is trade offs.

Providing too many gov't handouts unfairly taxes those that work hard in the middle and upper classes to subsidize the lifestyle of the working and poor classes. This decreases their incentive to excel and advance society through their professional careers. Also, too much government handouts makes those receiving benefits increasingly lazy as they become confortable and taking away motivation to better their life circumstance.

On the other side; the gov't doing nothing for the poor can be just as bad and possibly more destructive to society. While some people when cut off from the system will realize that they need to get a job & change their life situation getting them motivated and take the proper steps to put food on the table. Others will, however, try to take another easy fix and turn to crime. Some will say if this happens throw them in jail, but then we are back to square one. Instead of having to pay for someone to live on welfare, we are paying for them to sit in jail. Even worse in this situation a bunch of hungry un/underemployed people sitting around would have a very large destabalizing effect on our society. Look into political revolutions within the last 100 years as evidence. One early example of US gov't welfare was during the late 1800's with the native americans. The gov't did not give the natives living on the reservations food and blankets b.c someone in Washington was a nice guy. The US did this to subdue the indians who otherwise run the risk of further engaging in hostilities.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 11:21 AM. Reason : s]

11/19/2007 11:18:44 AM

^Hur by no means am I advocating doing nothing, but we are upside down with the way it currently is. Our govt rewards the irresponsible and penalizes the productive. Its really that simple.

What do you think about having random searches of public housing for drugs/weapons, etc? I think its a great idea.

11/19/2007 11:54:38 AM

We are nearly as bad as some European countries.

11/19/2007 12:43:30 PM

Quote :

"Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume $6/hour, 52 weeks a year. That's only $12,480, and that doesn't include taxes. Income tax will be nominal, and we'll assume it all comes back. That still requires 6.5% in payroll taxes, plus any other state and local taxes. That takes the sum down to $11,668.80 - not exactly stacking up favorably. I confess that I don't know the numbers for welfare. But either way, the fact that there's an incentive gap between welfare and working can create a serious problem. "

It is hard to make these comparisons without knowing a little more information. If the person in the above example has two children then by all means it is more beneficial for them to work. If they make 11,668.80 a year, they will pay $0 federal income tax, $712 in social security, $169 in medicare, and will receive a federal refund of over $4300 when they file there tax return.

They pay out about 900 in taxes but get $4300 in additional benefits from earned income credit when they file a return.

My feeling, with regards to welfare, is that 99% of the time its more beneficial to work then to do nothing. Besides, if people work they can become eligible for unemployment when they get layed off or fired, and thats not a joke.

I still have not seen a convincing argument within this thread on why our current tax system is unfair. Why does it need to be changed?

11/19/2007 4:56:44 PM

Quote :

"It is hard to make these comparisons without knowing a little more information. If the person in the above example has two children then by all means it is more beneficial for them to work. If they make 11,668.80 a year, they will pay $0 federal income tax, $712 in social security, $169 in medicare, and will receive a federal refund of over $4300 when they file there tax return. They pay out about 900 in taxes but get $4300 in additional benefits from earned income credit when they file a return."

My point was arguing in favor of the EIC policy, therefore I was specifically omitting its contribution. Your exercise demonstrates how it balances the incentive curve correctly, which was my point.

11/19/2007 5:39:26 PM

Quote :

"What do you think about having random searches of public housing for drugs/weapons, etc? I think its a great idea. "

That's a bad, fascist idea.

11/19/2007 5:54:42 PM

How about selling public housing to its current enhabitants for next to nothing? That sounds like a much better idea to me.

11/19/2007 5:57:54 PM

^These are genuine questions. I'm not sure on the answers.

What is our economic system supposed to be like? In that purest, most imaginary form, is poverty inevitable? In its modified, actual form, is poverty inevitable?

Like, here in North Carolina, when manufacturers came in and everybody got an okay job for a while and things were going well...and then the manufacturers found cheaper labor and left, and towns became depressed and everybody was out of a job without a pension... Is that how it's supposed to work? Are people supposed to move or go back to school at age 40?

Is it supposed to work for everybody or for the most people?

If just for the most people, is it possible to create a system that works for everybody (who tries)? Is that a question of our creativity or our intelligence? Or is it simply impossible?

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ?]

11/19/2007 6:18:58 PM

Human nature makes poverty inevitable for some. As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Our economic system is designed to provide opportunities for everyone. It's not perfect, but it's better than any socialist system designed to eliminate poverty.

11/19/2007 6:50:21 PM

moron, why is it a bad idea? in your opinion

11/19/2007 6:57:09 PM

Bridget, hi, long time no speak.

It is impossible to create a dynamic evolving economy that does not require its citizens to change from time to time.

Like, here in North Carolina, to talk about when manufacturers came in and everybody got an okay job is to ignore the rest of the story. The manufacturers moved to North Carolina because wages here were depressed due to losing so many agricultural jobs to productivity gains and competition from western states. Even then, these factories did not grow from no-where, they were relocated from various Northern states, leaving textile workers there unemployed without a pension. All these relocations lowered costs so all Americans could afford to be better fed and better clothed with money left over to seek their own dreams.

Things change. Detroit is turning into a ghost town, Navada is doubling in population every decade or so. To stop or impede this turn over would make us all poorer, yet most of us cannot afford to be any poorer than we already are. So our only hope is to thrive in this system, which usually means hedging your bets. Do not spend your entire paycheck, and keep avenues of debt open, keep your resume up-to-date, and keep in mind other businesses or professions open to you, as you never know when your chosen town or chosen profession will need to be eliminated for the greater good. Today's evolving economic system is not new, our ancestors have been thriving within it for centuries, and thus the same old rules given to us by our grandparents still apply; be frugal, enjoy life, plan for the future, and don't let anything get you down emotionally.

11/19/2007 7:07:41 PM

^good post shark. We all thought the country was doomed when the wagon wheel industry bit it.

11/19/2007 7:10:38 PM

^^ BUT WE ARE LOSING JOBS TO OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR LESS MONEY. AND THE DOLLAR IS FALLING AND AND AND.... IT'S NOT FAIR!

11/19/2007 8:48:44 PM

I agree w/ loan shark 100%

Quote :

"It's not perfect, but it's better than any socialist system designed to eliminate poverty"

you do no there is a difference btw a socialist society like in Sweden and a Communist system such as in the USSR. From my understanding (not that i necessarily support it) is that the socialist system in Sweden merely attempts to provide all with the basic necessities to live (housing, food, healthcare, cheap mass transit). There are still poor people and those that strive and become wealthy.

11/19/2007 9:33:43 PM

Quote :

"moron, why is it a bad idea? in your opinion "

There are many reasons.

The simplest is that the core principle of our legal system is that people are innocent until proven guilty. Private citizens don't have to follow this principle in their personal endeavors, but the gov. does, and preemptive searching of peoples' living areas is definitely against this principle.

11/19/2007 9:41:15 PM

moron, thanks for the reply. Where I differ in opinions is if someone is living in tax payer funded housing, that really isnt considered private property. We conduct random searches in schools, public buildings, and in prisons, why not public housing?

If anything, it could be more incentive to get out of it.

Supplanter, you make some good points. I think from the shear numbers comparing us to sweden wont work. Maybe we have it right currently, but the percentage of "poor" is the same as swedens. Im not sure I explained that right, but do you kinda get what im sayin?

11/20/2007 11:39:19 PM

^ I had a feeling you would say that. I don't even know why you brought up prisons, it's clearly ridiculous to use that as a comparison.

Even in schools, or other public buildings, the police don't have a right to search your own private property without a warrant or probable cause. Plus, public housing is not just something the gov. graciously provides, the people have to sign a lease and pay some amount of rent. Legally, they have an agreement with a housing association that gives them the same rents as anyone else renting a house anywhere. And just like anyone else, an officer of the law just can't barge in and search things.

Even if the laws were amended to allow for this, ideologically, it would not be a good practice. The majority of the people in public housing aren't criminals, and the ones that are should be easy to prove and get a warrant. It's not ethical or moral to treat families and people who haven't done anything wrong like criminals, when likely a majority of them are good people. It's amazing someone who has such little trust in the gov. otherwise would support giving them the power to randomly search poor peoples' homes. What's the next step? Randomly being able to search anyone's home who lives in a bad neighborhood?

Every year, we get several new laws, and the gov. encroaches just a little bit more. Mathematically, this process can't go on forever without causing the gov. to become purely corrupt, or to force rebellion. By far, one of the best places to prune gov. power is in laws than trend toward fascism, and random searches of peoples living areas definitely are fascist.

11/21/2007 2:39:58 AM

Its not private property, and as long as taxpayers are funding it why not make it subject to searches?

I dont see it as giving the government to search poor peoples houses as giving the govt to clean up tax payer funded houses. If someone cant afford a house but can afford drugs, push them out of there. Let someone who really needs it use it.

11/21/2007 1:13:45 PM

Quote :

"If someone cant afford a house but can afford drugs, push them out of there. Let someone who really needs it use it."

So the solution is to randomly search everyone in an area rather than do some actual investigation and find out who is breaking the law?

The housing is built by the gov., but is leased or rented to the renter. The gov. is the landlord, but police, the people doing the searching for legal purposes, are still bound by the law. Also, the stuff IN the house belongs solely to the person, that a landlord wouldn't have the right to touch.

11/21/2007 2:05:19 PM

^the government pays the rent, the person has to pay a certain percentage of thier income. The tax payers pay the rest. So if your income comes from tax payer=no rent. Follow me?

Public housing has been a problem in many areas, that is no surprise. Why not have them subject to searches? IE if they are a burden on the community and tax payers, why shouldnt THEY have some burdens, esp if it benefits the community?

BTW, no way in hell my idea would pass. Can you imagine the shitstorm.

11/21/2007 2:43:56 PM