And the winner of tonight's Republican debate...

Xceler8x wrote: Others are never able to due to reasons beyond their control or social forces such as working 40+ hours a week for a salary that is insufficient to live on. Without social assistance in the form of education or X they will be unable to rise above their current circumstance.

I think the major difference is in perception of this very idea. If I may put some fake numbers to it, I think the person you just described makes up 0.025% of the population, whereas you think it makes up 10%. Where to draw that line is key. I (and most folks with libertarian ideals) think that that the 99.975% of the population would do just fine without any government at all, and thusly they should be challenged to get themselves out of their rut, rather than cuddled into accepting their "fate". Challenging people makes them more resourceful and better at anticipating and avoiding circumstances in the future. By this I am saying that this aid should be somewhat difficult to get and not that fantastic in expense.

I don't even think we need to go that far philosophically.

I think we just need to categorise intention to NOT have people rely on these assistance programs and be willing to act on putting things into place so they don't need it.

Sure there's social security. Just in case. Now what are we doing to make it so you never need it? Are we educating people on how important saving is? For those who thing the government should be incentivising things, are they providing appropriate incentives to avoid concluding with Social Security?

or instead are we making it easier to get Social Security, expanding its coverage, increasing its benefit, and extending its usability?

madmallard wrote: Sure there's social security. Just in case. Now what are we doing to make it so you never need it? Are we educating people on how important saving is? For those who thing the government should be incentivising things, are they providing appropriate incentives to avoid concluding with Social Security?

Just the opposite. They keep sending me notices saying how much I can expect to have when I retire in 8,000 years. They encourage it, I don't believe there is a significant portion of the population left that understands that SS was intended to be a social safety net.

tuna55 wrote: I (and most folks with libertarian ideals) think that that the 99.975% of the population would do just fine without any government at all, and thusly they should be challenged to get themselves out of their rut, rather than cuddled into accepting their "fate".

Just curious- when you say "no government at all" do you mean assistance programs, or literally no government?

tuna55 wrote: I think the major difference is in perception of this very idea. If I may put some fake numbers to it, I think the person you just described makes up 0.025% of the population, whereas you think it makes up 10%. Where to draw that line is key. I (and most folks with libertarian ideals) think that that the 99.975% of the population would do just fine without any government at all, and thusly they should be challenged to get themselves out of their rut, rather than cuddled into accepting their "fate".

I think this is where all the issues are interrelated. I don't know how much of the population is intrinsically bound to end up needing help, but I suspect that the intrinsic part is dwarfed by results of industry actions.

When the bottom line says that Town X which had 50% of its jobs building widgets for widgetcorp suddenly loses out because Town Y (possibly in Country Z) offered better tax breaks, no amount of boostrap-grabbing is going to get the residents of Town X on their feet quickly. There are N people willing, able, and eager to work, and N/2 jobs.

Even when things are good, we have what, six or seven percent unemployment, with respect to people who are actively looking for work?

It's a simplistic example, but I think it illustrates the point that laziness and the state teat are not the only explanation for extended reliance on benefits. I certainly don't think it's all industry's fault and that everybody would be hard at work given the slightest chance, but between that and people who are working full time but don't make enough to pay a family's bills, I just don't see being able to cleanly reduce un/under-employments benefits to that extent.

Maybe it continues in a circular fashion, and if we didn't have the social programs we could tax the businesses enough less to not have to give them the breaks in order to keep them and everyone would stay employed and able to fend for themselves. But I find that hard to swallow. Where industry is unregulated and protections are not in place, it seems to me that we see not increased prosperity for everyone, but greater gaps between "owners" and "workers", never mind the fate of those who can't make it to "worker".

And that, I guess, is the core of the discussion. Which model could actually work if it got all the pieces put together at once? Has the world ever seen such a thing?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I (and most folks with libertarian ideals) think that that the 99.975% of the population would do just fine without any government at all, and thusly they should be challenged to get themselves out of their rut, rather than cuddled into accepting their "fate".

Just curious- when you say "no government at all" do you mean assistance programs, or literally no government?

I intended that to mean "no government at all", but I am thinking about that harder now. I obviously don't mean to say that the US could easily exist as an anarchy. I guess "no government assistance" makes more sense, as you suggested.

That's what I thought. Carry on.

ransom wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I think the major difference is in perception of this very idea. If I may put some fake numbers to it, I think the person you just described makes up 0.025% of the population, whereas you think it makes up 10%. Where to draw that line is key. I (and most folks with libertarian ideals) think that that the 99.975% of the population would do just fine without any government at all, and thusly they should be challenged to get themselves out of their rut, rather than cuddled into accepting their "fate".

I think this is where all the issues are interrelated. I don't know how much of the population is intrinsically bound to end up needing help, but I suspect that the intrinsic part is dwarfed by results of industry actions. When the bottom line says that Town X which had 50% of its jobs building widgets for widgetcorp suddenly loses out because Town Y (possibly in Country Z) offered better tax breaks, no amount of boostrap-grabbing is going to get the residents of Town X on their feet quickly. There are N people willing, able, and eager to work, and N/2 jobs.

Ahh, good point here. I would be arguing for an end to corporate welfare as well. That crates more of a barrier to entry like I was talking about earlier. When Amazon can come to my state and not charge anyone sales tax it puts all other of that type of business at a huge disadvantage.

ransom wrote: Even when things are good, we have what, six or seven percent unemployment, with respect to people who are actively looking for work? It's a simplistic example, but I think it illustrates the point that laziness and the state teat are not the only explanation for extended reliance on benefits. I certainly don't think it's all industry's fault and that everybody would be hard at work given the slightest chance, but between that and people who are working full time but don't make enough to pay a family's bills, I just don't see being able to cleanly reduce un/under-employments benefits to that extent.

Again I would argue that both that 6-7% would rotate (the same people would not continue to be unemployed) and if you removed barriers to entry (vague, I know) I could sell furniture and work on cars while "unemployed" and still earn my keep.

ransom wrote: Maybe it continues in a circular fashion, and if we didn't have the social programs we could tax the businesses enough less to not have to give them the breaks in order to keep them and everyone would stay employed and able to fend for themselves. But I find that hard to swallow. Where industry is unregulated and protections are not in place, it seems to me that we see not increased prosperity for everyone, but greater gaps between "owners" and "workers", never mind the fate of those who can't make it to "worker". And that, I guess, is the core of the discussion. Which model could actually work if it got all the pieces put together at once? Has the world ever seen such a thing?

No, the world has never seen such a thing. I can't posibly argue that my model will drop the unemployment to zero, or that everyone will have an awesome job siting in hot tubs with supermodels at the race track, but I think more towards what I am saying and less of what happens now would benefit everyone.

As far as the "has" vs the "has not", it seems to me that the more you provide easy, awesome social programs, the more corporate welfare, the more legislation that naturally crates high barriers to entry, the greater that gap will be. The very things that strive to eliminate the gap help it exist in a sinister way.

Salanis wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Salanis, you are far more in tune with my sentiments than Jeff. There are integral portions of our cultural fabric that can be defined as "socialist" in nature. Only an anarchist would argue eliminating those things and I haven't seen anyone taking that attitude.

I suspect I'm also more in tune with Jeff than you are. My issue, and I suspect Jeff's as well, is that "socialism" and "socialist" have kind of become dirty words. Government run services like military, roads, police, schoools, etc. are socialist (small 's'). Pretty much everyone would agree that we need *some* amount of government that provides some amount of social services, and is therefore socialist to a certain degree. The debate should not be whether or not we "should be socialist", but rather what amount of socialism is appropriate for our society The problem is, people who believe our society should provide more services get demonized by labeling them "Socialist". That would be about akin to labeling someone who thinks we should make government smaller an "Anarchist".

Re, the bolded section: This is precisely where the debate should be concentrated.

Hess made a (snarky) comment regarding current policies that greatly expand government, i.e., "socialist". The response was akin to labelling him as an "anarchist".

If one is going to start applying labels, it's best to know that there are different interpretaions. It's even better to avoid using them altogether.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: That's what I thought. Carry on.

Thanks for making me think about it critically.

I just wish it weren't taboo in both parties to see the huge mass of educated and skilled unemployed people for what it is: a readily exploitable resource. Construction has been one of the hardest hit industries in the past several years. I can't see what sense there is to give so many people unemployment checks instead of putting them to work building necessary infrastructure at reduced rates. Instead we wait until things like bridges, schools, etc. have to be replaced on an emergency timeline, which jacks up costs and produces the worst results and greatest loss of productivity for the people who need such resources (which, if you think about it, is exactly how our healthcare system operates, but I digress).

Why can't government be more responsive to actual conditions? Making the best of a down economy doesn't have to mean creating a perpetuating expenditure, and the response to a good economy doesn't have to be to blow the money as soon as we get it (either in the form of tax cuts or runaway spending). To be prudent with personal finances usually means saving as much as you can when you can afford to, and investing in yourself when you need to, and I can't see why both parties don't even seem to consider this sort of behavior on a large scale. We're basically the country who blows his big bonus check on a new harley and a lifted truck, and then gets stuck flipping burgers a couple years later because he can't afford to go back to school when he gets laid off.

^See my desire for "Workfare" in previous threads.

its because many people (with power) still don't think we have a spending problem.

Josh wrote: I just wish it weren't taboo in both parties to see the huge mass of educated and skilled unemployed people for what it is: a readily exploitable resource. Construction has been one of the hardest hit industries in the past several years. I can't see what sense there is to give so many people unemployment checks instead of putting them to work building necessary infrastructure at reduced rates. Instead we wait until things like bridges, schools, etc. have to be replaced on an emergency timeline, which jacks up costs and produces the worst results and greatest loss of productivity for the people who need such resources (which, if you think about it, is exactly how our healthcare system operates, but I digress). Why can't government be more responsive to actual conditions? Making the best of a down economy doesn't have to mean creating a perpetuating expenditure, and the response to a good economy doesn't have to be to blow the money as soon as we get it (either in the form of tax cuts or runaway spending). To be prudent with personal finances usually means saving as much as you can when you can afford to, and investing in yourself when you need to, and I can't see why both parties don't even seem to consider this sort of behavior on a large scale. We're basically the country who blows his big bonus check on a new harley and a lifted truck, and then gets stuck flipping burgers a couple years later because he can't afford to go back to school when he gets laid off.

Amen.

<--- Kinda likes the idea of a WPA style back to work effort, despite my libertarian tendencies.

Seriously, if congress worked as well as this thread at hashing out ideas and respecting opinions, this country would be in a far better place.

wow, i walk away for a couple hours and all of a sudden there's dogs and cats living together and getting along just fine! is this the first self-correcting political thread in the history of teh intarweb?

nice work, fellas.

Josh wrote: I just wish it weren't taboo in both parties to see the huge mass of educated and skilled unemployed people for what it is: a readily exploitable resource. Construction has been one of the hardest hit industries in the past several years. I can't see what sense there is to give so many people unemployment checks instead of putting them to work building necessary infrastructure at reduced rates. Instead we wait until things like bridges, schools, etc. have to be replaced on an emergency timeline, which jacks up costs and produces the worst results and greatest loss of productivity for the people who need such resources (which, if you think about it, is exactly how our healthcare system operates, but I digress).

The problem with that seems to be that "public infrastructure" seems to have become a dirty word unless it's combined in a sentence with "privatized". That's not only the case over here (in the UK, they were very fond of so-called "public-private partnerships" for certain types of infrastructure that mostly consisted of the private partner ripping off the public one), it's just that there is a lot more infrastructure necessary in a country the size of the US.

Actually, I'm also of the opinion that a WPA-style program would be a huge benefit for everybody involved - it would keep people in their houses, at least those who are about to lose their home because of long-term unemployment, people would actually be able to spend money again (a large part of the current economic issues is the lack of consumer spending, something that the US economy is particularly vulnerable to) and as a side effect we might actually end up with better roads, bridges, water supply and - $DEITY forbid - levees that might withstand the odd storm or flood.

Josh wrote: Why can't government be more responsive to actual conditions? Making the best of a down economy doesn't have to mean creating a perpetuating expenditure, and the response to a good economy doesn't have to be to blow the money as soon as we get it (either in the form of tax cuts or runaway spending). To be prudent with personal finances usually means saving as much as you can when you can afford to, and investing in yourself when you need to, and I can't see why both parties don't even seem to consider this sort of behavior on a large scale. We're basically the country who blows his big bonus check on a new harley and a lifted truck, and then gets stuck flipping burgers a couple years later because he can't afford to go back to school when he gets laid off.

Butbutbutbut, if you're elected with a 2-4 year time horizon and most of the economy works on a 3-month scale, long term thinking is probably adequately described by trying to figure out what you want for dinner at around lunch time...

I like turtle pie.

93EXCivic wrote: I like turtle pie.

Hey man, even you have to admit that this thread has remained decidedly unfloundered and therefore unpied as well.

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I like turtle pie.

Hey man, even you have to admit that this thread has remained decidedly unfloundered and therefore unpied as well.

Ok but it is completely off topic.

madmallard wrote: I think we just need to categorise intention to NOT have people rely on these assistance programs and be willing to act on putting things into place so they don't need it.

Should this apply to corporations that currently enjoy tax benefits and government grants? Corporations already earning obscene profits?

It riles my cyncism to hear we can't afford to help educate poor children but we can afford to offer tax cuts and grants to well off business entities.

tuna55 wrote: Just the opposite. They keep sending me notices saying how much I can expect to have when I retire in 8,000 years. They encourage it, I don't believe there is a significant portion of the population left that understands that SS was intended to be a social safety net.

This is a valid concern. When you have very rich politicians drawing on SS you have an entrenched social benefit. VRP's don't need that money but they feel entitled to is so they add this meager benefit to their current fortune.

BoxheadTim wrote: Butbutbutbut, if you're elected with a 2-4 year time horizon and most of the economy works on a 3-month scale, long term thinking is probably adequately described by trying to figure out what you want for dinner at around lunch time...

Wall St. has the same issue. Lack of foresight into the future beyond 6 mo's to a year.

AngryCorvair wrote: wow, i walk away for a couple hours and all of a sudden there's dogs and cats living together and getting along just fine! is this the first self-correcting political thread in the history of teh intarweb? nice work, fellas.

I blame jg. He's the crazy man who started all this with his hatin' politics.

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I like turtle pie.

Hey man, even you have to admit that this thread has remained decidedly unfloundered and therefore unpied as well.

That's 'cause I've pretty much kept out.

Blueberry for me.

Xceler8x wrote: Should this apply to corporations that currently enjoy tax benefits and government grants? Corporations already earning obscene profits?

YES! It all should end. Regardless of profit, no company or industry has a right to government goodies that others do not. Doing so is just setting policy in a sinister and unaccountable way.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: That's 'cause I've pretty much kept out.

Nah - you're cool.

Xceler8x wrote:

madmallard wrote: I think we just need to categorise intention to NOT have people rely on these assistance programs and be willing to act on putting things into place so they don't need it.

Should this apply to corporations that currently enjoy tax benefits and government grants? Corporations already earning obscene profits? It riles my cyncism to hear we can't afford to help educate poor children but we can afford to offer tax cuts and grants to well off business entities.

Its immaterial if they are earning obscene profits.

I don't think it should apply to tax cuts, because philosophically, they earned that money in the first place, a cut simply allows them to keep more.

but I DO think it should apply to subsidies, tax CREDITS, and grants. If a business relies on any of these things to function as a business(beyond lets say a startup time length), then they are a socialist-statist entity or industry that can't survive but for government intervention.