2

12/3/2009 4:17:32 PM

I actually do give to charities. My big three are SPCA, USO, and St. Judes. (not counting ncsu)

But I choose to support those, and if I had more of my salary, id give more. But then we just get back to the basic arguement of you tell me what to do with the money I earned. Which is our primary difference.

12/3/2009 4:19:05 PM

^^ Clever. Ever been to chit chat?

12/3/2009 4:21:31 PM

I give to United Way from which I get to choose what programs my mom goes, St. Judes, and NCSU.

I would probably be able to give more if 30% of my paycheck did not go to Obama continuing Bush's wars for oil, welfare queens, Ted Stevens building add-ons to his mansion, DEA's busting 15 yr olds for smoking pot, and a whole bureacracy that does nothing but sit on their ass most of the time to enforce different gov't policies/standards.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 4:27 PM. Reason : a]

12/3/2009 4:24:10 PM

^^ i'm in TSB enough - saw it was almost to 2 so i posted it. sue me

12/3/2009 4:26:29 PM

^^ You'd love it in Texas.

12/3/2009 4:32:18 PM

When I was in memphis got to do/see a lot with St. Jude. Great organization. They told us they have enough in thier endowment to cover thier expenses, so all thier new donations go directly to research or care. (this was before 2004, so they might have taken a huge hit with the markets since) I just thought that was awesome. If you ever get a chance to visit, youll have a new appreciation for a lot of things in life.

12/3/2009 4:33:58 PM

Quote :

"If you are on welfare, then you should have to take BC. I would also push for the alternatives like the morning after pill to be easy to access to cut down on the numbers seeking abortions."

I like this. Or at least, the idea behind it.

Rooting out some of the perverse incentives that go along with welfare would make me immensely happy. The subsidized children problem is a good example.

Unfortunately, "You should have to take BC" isn't very helpful because we don't have any mechanism to make sure people did this. Any mechanism devised would require a sizable bureaucracy and a lot of headaches.

Although I suppose maybe you could try something similar. I'm not terribly up-to-date on my birth control technology, but if I recall there's a shot that can be given four times a year or so. That would be relatively easy to check. If you want to get your checks for the next three months, you have to go down to the office and show proof that you're up to date on your shots, so to speak.

To get around some opposition you could still have welfare available for those who didn't get the shot, but much less of it. You want full benefits, you shut off the baby factory.

Sigh...of course, even that would never work. Some women's groups would protest that it puts unfair requirements on female recipients, since there's no male bc. The Catholic church would shit itself.

12/3/2009 5:20:40 PM

^ so you only support it, because you know it'll never happen?

12/3/2009 5:30:21 PM

No, more than once I've spent time trying to think of a workable way to accomplish something similar. In no small part because of how often it comes up in this forum, the whole child incentive argument regarding welfare is one I focus on.

But what can you do? Reducing benefits for people that have more kids punishes people who weren't trying to have more, and who in fact may have been careful. No baby-prevention method is perfect -- our own moderator can attest to that. And it punishes all the affected kids, who can't be blamed for their own conception.

Making benefits tied to birth control avoids that problem but runs into opposition from a slew of special interest groups who are angry for different -- and often contradictory -- reasons. It would work great in a practical sense but not in any legal sense I can come up with.

I'm certainly open to any suggestions you may have.

12/3/2009 7:34:00 PM

If there were safe, reversible sterility methods for both sexes that would be ideal. Of course, idiots like the Catholic church would still oppose it, but they think handing out condoms in sub-saharan Africa is bad. You can't reason with people whose whole basis for their position is unreasonable.

I'd be in favor of other things, like road side cleanup or a required number of verifiable hours spent working at a food bank or other similar place being mandatory if you receive welfare. Hell, if we can make high school students do it for free then why not those who are currently getting paid to do nothing.

12/3/2009 7:46:05 PM

^^ What about putting a muzzle on the Catholic church and supporting responsible planned parenthood.

Sarah Palin's family has proven that abstinence only "education" does not work. Perhaps if Mrs. Palin had instead been realistic and encouraged Bristol to be "responsible," Bristol would not be another out-of-wedlock teen mother. Luckily for her she comes from a good family but for the majority of teenage girls this is a financial trap except for a few highly motivated individuals.

Stories like (from page 1)

Quote :

"My g/f was telling me about how the girl in her CNA class (a pre-req at local community college needed for her 4-year B.S in nursing) had a sister who at 16 was knocked up by her mom's ex boyfriend. "

should not be occurring.... especially if all these liberals want to roll out their socialist programs.

On a similar note, one of my friends has a cousin who at 16 also got knocked up by a 21 yr old that lives with his mom and no job. I'm sure this kid has an outstanding future and the mother too since she ran away from home and lives with a friend.

Do the countries in western europe that have all these socialist welfare programs have a "freeloader" problem at the same magnitude as we have?


[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 8:08 PM. Reason : l]

12/3/2009 8:04:46 PM

^^ Even non reversible sterilization would work (of course you'd never get it to pass). I mean it isn't like there aren't thousands of kids that need to be adopted out there. And no problems with religious nuts since it isn't contraceptives, and no problems with the women's rights groups as you can sterilize men too. Of course the ACLU and such might have a few strong words to say, but honestly, I'm not so sure that it's a horrible price to ask you to pay that you repay society by helping another child get off the system rather than making your own. Hell, I'd even be ok with expanded social services if it meant forced sterilization, the "cycle of poverty" can't continue if you can't breed into poverty.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM. Reason : adsf]

12/3/2009 8:05:51 PM

Quote :

"What about putting a muzzle on the Catholic church"

How do you propose going about that? Last I heard (and admittedly this is dated) they had the largest membership of any single organization in the country. Some legislators can ignore them because their districts have so few Catholics, but not many. Almost every part of the country has a large minority (or majority) of Micks, Dagos, Wetbacks, Polacks, or some other breed of Papist.

Now, obviously they don't have a stranglehold -- far from it. Plenty of people get elected while promoting things that the church opposes. But they're going to think long and hard about adding yet another point of contention. And, in the case of tying welfare to contraception, it wouldn't just be a sticking point with Catholics -- women's rights groups and poverty advocates would be angry, too, even if the damn thing did work.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 8:10:11 PM

What better plan do poverty advocates have???

Blaming the rich, taking their money, fattening welfare checks, and creating new programs to give out handouts??

I am not some diehard conservative who thinks its time to shut off the welfare "valve" and make em work or starve. What though is the answer? Simply providing a "chance" no matter if its housing subsidy, food stamps, welfare checks, or some other social program seems only to continue if not spread the problem as people become contempt with their free lifestyle and even profit from breeding more children into it.

How do we go about helping those that have a problem or unfortunate circumstance while kicking the free-riders off that in all likelihood have children that follow in their parents footsteps??

12/3/2009 8:19:48 PM

Quote :

"What better plan do poverty advocates have???"

I don't know that they do. But no doubt many will claim that trying welfare to contraception unfairly targets the reproductive rights of the poor. If they're clever, they'll compare it to forced sterilization programs that endured until quite late in many parts of the country, and which disproportionately targeted minorities. Whether you think that's appropriate or not, you should be able to understand why they might be nervous, given the history.

Quote :

"How do we go about helping those that have a problem or unfortunate circumstance while kicking the free-riders off that in all likelihood have children that follow in their parents footsteps??"

Obviously enough this is the big question. I would love to come up with an answer to it. I agree with you that the current system has serious flaws but so far nothing in this thread looks like it can fix them.

12/3/2009 8:23:05 PM

Hell, you could probably take 95% of the wealth from the top 1% and give it, cash in hand to the bottom 30% and within a decade it would end up right back where it was 10 years before. The only solution I see is to refuse to administer welfare type programs to those who are physically and mentally capable of working. Only expand that if we are in a period of economic crisis like right now then perhaps temporary government work doing things like infrastructure work, urban beautification, etc. would be the correct trade off. As much as I disliked almost everything FDR did, I think "make work" programs might be a good thing to have in place right now for those on the welfare roles.

12/3/2009 8:25:40 PM

Quote :

"If they're clever, they'll compare it to forced sterilization programs"

No one though is forcing sterilization. I to think this step is extreme but in the BC situation it is simple. If you want your free welfare check or more monies on your EBT card so you can buy pork rinds and plenty of coca-colers at Walmart then you must practice family planning as prudent. The government is not making you take the subsidies and supplement income. You are welcome to find your own means for income. While though the tax-payer is supporting you NO MORE CHILDREN of which become an additional liability.

Quote :

"ou could probably take 95% of the wealth from the top 1% and give it, cash in hand to the bottom 30% and within a decade it would end up right back where it was 10 years before"

This actually some of the incentive for Welfare and foodstamps. Beyond the "humanitarian" feelings of the softy liberal types, those in consumer goods and food industries benefit from these type programs. Hence its no coincidence John Kerry (a liberal democrat) is married into Heinz family. More foodstamp monies means more families buying ketchup and other food products.



[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM. Reason : l]

12/3/2009 8:27:25 PM

Quote :

"The market tanked, I dont see how is a sign of anything, other than more needed to put thier money into safer investments as they get closer to retirement."

Possibly, but the more important point is that it did occur and millions of Americans feel like they were swindled in some form. Perception here is more important than a very complicated reality.

Quote :

"I think most of these are issues are legitimate concerns though his logical chain that this is leading to the end of the Republic is a bit far fetched. Again, as bad as things are, I don't know if they're that much worse than other periods in history such as the 1960s, 1930s, or even earlier."

Agreed, though the actual un/underemployment rate is arguably rivaling Great Depression levels and not likely to subside for quite some time. The unemployment rate of recent college graduates is generally accepted to be in the vicinity of 25%, if not substantially higher.

Quote :

"With regards to Goldman Sachs, I hate to punish them for actually doing their jobs. If I remember, was Goldman one of those banks that was forced to take taxpayer money in order to hide from the markets which banks were on the verge of insolvency? Also, can you really blame Goldman Sachs for giving bonuses to their people because they were able to figure out how to make money in the current market environment?"

Agreed, they didn't have to take the bailout but the process in general was orchestrated by a large number of GS alumni. Goldman's climate is such that employees are encouraged to make as much as they can in their 20s and early 30s before moving on to positions in government / the Fed. This isn't by accident. Again, even if the result is from GS doing the right thing, from a populist standpoint the perception is rather negative.

Investment banks have largely profited from the cheap money policy the Federal Reserve has pursued over the last decade. The fact that they were bailed out at the debt expense of the middle class (who is the most effected by the repercussions of easy money) is again one of those areas where perception counts more than a complex reality (and may not be exceptionally distant from a said reality).

Quote :

"Is the small arms and ammunition industry reaping record profits because gun proliferation is going nuts or perhaps the small issue that THERE ARE TWO WARS we are engaged in at the present moment?"

Even at exceptionally high prices the bottom of the supply did drop out over the last 12 months. I know of people who waited six months to get ammunition in that they normally would have had in a week. But your point is valid.

Quote :

"Americans don't have the balls to do anything like that anymore. Leave that to desperate people, not comfortable, slovenly red necks with mental disabilities."

The idea that only rednecks and white trash are purchasing up weapons and preparing for social unrest is a common misconception but a erroneous nonetheless.

Quote :

"then again, more and more 20-30 something white males vote based on the belief that someday they will be the guy with all the money power hustle respekt than vote based on anything else, really. why have comfort and sustainability when you have an outside shot at buying and island someday?"

I think you misread the majority of voters here. Yeah, some think they might possibly be wealthy, but others simply prefer the freedom to keep as much of what they earn as possible. Taxation and wealth redistribution is inherently inefficient and generally hurts middle income earners significantly more than those who can afford to shield their wealth elsewhere or those who do not pay taxes in the first place.

Quote :

"What about putting a muzzle on the Catholic church and supporting responsible planned parenthood."

Perhaps the 1st Amendment? I mean I'm an atheist and I'm indifferent about abortion and yet I see this. I think removing monetary incentives to procreate would be more effective than simply muzzling private individuals whom you happen to disagree with.

12/3/2009 8:30:41 PM

Quote :

"No one though is forcing sterilization. I to think this step is extreme but in the BC situation it is simple. If you want your free welfare check or more monies on your EBT card so you can buy pork rinds and plenty of coca-colers at Walmart then you must practice family planning as prudent."

Dude, you're preaching to the choir. I agree with you. But other people don't, and those other people have the ability to block the program we seem to agree upon.

A competent and ambitious poverty advocate opposed to the BC/welfare program is going to label it as a government program to restrict the reproductive rights of the poor and probably the black. If I were being paid to oppose such a program, it's exactly one of the things I'd do.

12/3/2009 8:55:21 PM

Quote :

"fyi, i just bought some stock in SWHC, and might also pick up some RGR"

pwnt

SWHC down 18%

ok, back to the thread in the lounge...

12/4/2009 11:45:46 AM

I think its a universal rule that any argument which quotes the month's stock market high's as a data point automatically forfeits its own credibility.

12/4/2009 2:31:54 PM