buying the poor rights

So, what in the hell can be done to reverse this snowball that is rolling down Gunbarrel at Lake Tahoe that will in all likelihood be the amagaddon of the US as we now know it?

Since we are talking of Lake Tahoe, I used to be a dealer at Harrah's: Baccarat and Craps and 21. I always had a season pass at one of the many slopes. I doubt it is the same now as it was then which was fantastic.

I believe that you do not have to spent money at all because they already have all these rights. Between the government and the charitable institution these are all provided. haven't you heard of people in welfare including some illegal aliens, State Suplemental Income, Women in Childcare.

By trying to force the government to give more forces the government to collect more from the people through taxes. In the end the incentive to suceed in our free enterprise system would be demolished and we become a communist state.

It wasn't a fun laugh.



That is a very good argument against someting that I never said or implied.



The laugh was at this type of insular thinking. It appears that any basis for comparison is irrelevant uness we are discussing "global issues". With that I disagree.

Anywho, I retract my previous comment about my inability to articulate it, it appears my abilities make no difference. I clearly stated that I think that "the current system is a joke" but you continue to characterize my comments as an argument that the system is "OK". Makes for daunting communication.

Your abilities to articulate may have made a difference, but without the attempt I'll never know.

I'm truly sorry that my insular thinking, my irrelevance, my deafness to your laugh and my inability to decipher some other point from your post beside the one I construed makes me too daunting to communicate with.

It seems you are just too far above me to bother with. I'll show myself out.

Sugar I DID attempt to articulate it. But when I state that the system is a "joke" and you tell me that I'm arguing that it's "ok" there's not much I can do as there couldn't be more difference between the two. We agree on the negative evaluation of the social services in America. I'd not like to have to pretend to disagree on that just to further the conversation so I excused myself a few posts ago. It's not an attempt to cast myself as to far above you to discuss it I simply haven't had much time recently and didn;t feel like getting to far into this one. That it was an nothing more.

Ok, I have some time.

First, sorry for offending you. 'Twas not my intention.

Second I realized that I may be wildly off topic. I was talking way more 'meta' than anyone here and perhaps I need to be doing this elsewhere.

Ok, to summarize my line of thinking I note that in the past economists considered poverty the fault of the poor. Without getting into specific modern arguments I will just note that that concept has been soundly debunked. Sure you will find that many of the poor are so because of their actions exclusively. Many more are poor because of their actions in addition to the economic situation of the society.

But full employment is a very worthwhile ideal because it makes a tremendous difference to the society. And there is a palpable difference in nations who have learned this lesson vs. nations that haven't.

Recognition that poverty is contagious and that poverty has as much to do with the society as the individual is the meta point I was making. I agree in that the US has a 'broken' welfare system. So while I agree that the system is broken I disagree with some people's call to return to the days prior to this earcth changing economic lesson. We might go about it the wrong way but we have the right idea.

The lesson about poverty is something all first world countries have learned. The third world countries have or have not, but either way the people in power don't choose to implement the lesson or are unable to do it successfully. This is largely due to the fact that they do not need it for personal reasons and are happy not to rock the boat.

So when I referenced the difference bwteeen America's beggars and that of other nations I was thinking of it in terms of the difference between a society that has learned that Brenda is their problem and a society that hasn't.

Upon reflection and noticing that I'm off topic this difference is only relevant to my line of discussion (which I was pursuing alone).

Anywho, it certainly wasn't woth the wait but it's off my radar now.

Edit: BTW, buying the poor rights is certainly not the way to go about it.

Wanna know what I'd do with the welfare system? Convert it all into low paying jobs.

Anyone physically able to work who is on welfare (or any social program) will get a job picking up trash or whatever.

Handouts are economically foolish as well because it kills productivity. Handouts come in many forms, the US frequently subsidizes farmers and sometimes pays them not to plant (to maintain prices) that is another foolish method because even though the farmer's set for the year the guy selling tractors and seed to him isn't because productivity was killed.

The big flaw in "but the poor rights" and socialism is the decline of productivity.

I just added that because the opposite extreme of the "poor is as poor does" position is as dangerous IMO.

That's not the proper function of government. So, no, that would not be a wise use of your money.

Fond of coercing those with money into giving it to those without? Great. Socialism has worked oh so well elsewhere in the world. Not. You now have a mass of money. Give it away.. the foundation idea seems apt.

My real question boils down to; would more poor people be helped by fighting poverty issues in court or would more people be helped by directly helping them. Also, the question has been asked; WHO would pay for these benefits to the poor. If poverty was substantially reduced permanently then, if anything, taxes would be lower because of the reduced costs to the government. It is cheaper to operate a government when there are fewer poor people. As a general illustration, if everyone had a job then food stamp costs to the government would be drastically reduced. It costs the government a great deal to pay for the maintenaance of a "lower" class. The real question then is who is paying for the costs of keeping millions in poverty. :wink:

I am surprised at a pervasive trend in this discussion which is the dominance of personal feelings and resentments on the subject. I can not imagine how anyone can fail to see the "rights" that have been solidly established in this country that are not mentioned in the Constitution. The RIGHT to privacy is a major example. Not to mention that certain darker Americans are really 5 fifths of a person now rather than 3 fifths. What happened to this legal truth. The fluidity of the document is remarkable. As for the person that suggested a reform of the welfare system by requiring recepients to work, I can tell you as a former welfare worker that this is probably the greatest misconception I know of about those receiving public assistance. It has been nearly 30 years since able bodied people have been able to receive welfare. If a person receives it then that person, in the United States, is disabled or the single parent of a child under 6. Every state is a little different but no where do functional people receive welfare. American law is like water, not like a stone. If it is the will of the people to abolish poverty then it can be done by law. Maybe we should use that recent 87 billion dollars on American poverty instead of "the enemy". I wonder how far that much money could go to eradicate the lower classes thru legislation? As for the life and liberty and pursuit of happiness remark, isn't that in the Dec. of independance? That is only, essentially, an explanation, not a "legal" document as far as daily application of the law is concerned. I may be wrong about that but I do know that we are entitled to a lot more. The Amendments to the Constitution are our surest guarantee of rights, and they are many. If "life" is a guarantee, then capital punishment wouldn't be legal. Neither would death by exposure, hence a right to be protected to some degree by the government. Again, death by starvation would be covered. Not to mention the legal effects of the 10th Amendment and it's implications.

This is untrue. I know a line full of able-bodied, perfectly healthy people with no children or children well over six (about half of them grown adults) that receive welfare. To say that only the disabled or single parent gets welfare is completely false.

It may be correct to say that's the way it should be, but it is incorrect to say that it is.