And if those magical jobs have been exported, or taken by immigrants who will take less than you can and still feed your family, or been automated out of existence? Two of these things, at least, make the economy stronger, but what’s wrong with taking some of that benefit to help those run over by the economy?
You or I, if we had to, could push out someone less intelligent. What about those poor people (both meanings of that word) on the bottom?
What’s wrong is that it infantilizes people. It reinforces Þhe notion that the state is there to take care of them and they need not have any responsibility for their own lives. A person in the situations you described is not irreparably screwed, they have lots of options to deal with their problem.
I repeat, on what planet does it infantilize such people to help them acquire marketable job skills? Or to sell them health insurance at a reasonable price?
Well, I was speaking more about the cash handouts to the poor, specifically those that are part of Obama’s plan. Some limited program of free job education would be fine with me I guess, but that really should be something done by the states (so I guess I’d be fine with the federal government paying for it). What gets me is Obama’s proposed massive redistribution of wealth.
Dude, stop talking in code. Just call him a socialist so we can all point at you and laugh.
My experience is that people who say “that kind of thing should be done by the states” will elect whoever promises them lower taxes on down to the county freeholder and the village dogcatcher, so I’m afraid I really don’t believe you there.
The data shows that people go in and out of welfare. Why is giving a family money to tide them over while they look for jobs infantalizing them? Sure they have options - look for work. But what do you propose they do for food while looking? You think people making close to minimum wage have lots of savings?
Job training programs are good, and some have been around for ages. But they don’t guarantee that people getting the training get jobs. Not to mention that plenty of skilled people are suffering these days also, like the guys who built houses back when they were still being built.
In any case, people in training programs still have to eat.
As for redistribution of wealth, we’ve had a massive redistribution of wealth over the past 8 years, from the middle class to the rich. That’s okay with you, no doubt, since the rich people, especially the ones on Wall Street, have done such a great job.
This is beyond idiotic. The rich get richer by creating more wealth not by taking it from the middle class.
Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t.
For example, right now we’re seeing a massive economic meltdown caused largely by rich people who got richer by embarking on non-productive, irresponsibly risky financial shell games that have ended up destroying net wealth, not creating it. Millions of non-rich people are taking a severe economic hit because of those rich people’s greed and lack of caution.
Sure, there are lots of productive, responsible rich people in the world, and I sincerely hope (and tend to believe) that they far outnumber the greedy and unscrupulous ones. But the market-fundamentalist axiom that the increasing wealth of rich people is necessarily good for prosperity in general, or that rich people never become richer at the expense of the less wealthy, is now thoroughly exploded.
Oh God, we’re back to trickle down economics. It’s stupid and morally wrong to tax the really really rich too much because they’re the ones who create wealth for lesser beings, those less intelligent, hard-working, less motivated. Ungrateful bastards.
No, no, people never get rich because of family connections, or being in the right place in the right time, or just being a particularly charming guy, or ripping someone else off, or just plain getting lucky. They always get rich because they’re smarter and they work harder, so they Create Jobs For Other People. Didn’t you know that?
Do you have a guess at the percentage of millionaires who inherited or were gifted any significant sum of money? Go ahead, guess.
The idea that most of the rich inherited their wealth is a fallacy. The super-rich that inherited their wealth are a very small number of people and a tiny percentage of Americans.
Your membership on the SDSAB is an embarrasment.
One of you is an embarrassment. It ain’t the one with Veblen in her name.
Man, is ther a class for how to be a liberal douche on the SDMB or something? Every one of you guys does the “turn the insult around” thing. I anticipate it every single time I snark at someone, and BAM there it is every single time. Try having an original thought some time people.
Says the poster with “Rand” in his name.
I didn’t figure this deserved its own thread, but wanted to throw it out for comment. It’s seems like some odd behavior by both McCain and Obama. It came to my attention via TalkingPointsMemo.com
In 2006 McCain sent Obama a fairly abusive letter that included these remarks:
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions...
I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.
(…)
I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
That’s a cold blooded letter from one Senator to another. Obama’s response was (as you might imagine) very respectful and gracious. Right here.
What’s odd however is that Obama published the exchange on his senatorial website. And that’s the only example I could find on his website of direct congressional correspondence.
I did a site search for “letters,” and that was the number one hit. The other top hits were press releases that reprinted some letters in a larger context. But the Obama/McCain exchange seemed unique.
Could it have been an example of Obama being polite and professional, while also flashing brass knuckles in response to an unprovoked attack?
I don’t know enough about ethics legislation or general legislative procedure to comment authoritativel… but it seems that in 2006 McCain invited Obama to a discussion about bi-partisan ethics reform. During the meeting Obama noted that he preferred to work through established Democratic committees, and afterwards he sent McCain a letter reiterating the point.
McCain went off on him.
Oddness.
That’s rich, coming from you.
Rand Rover, I have a few questions for you. Did you attend public school as a child? How much do you, personally, give to charity?
Baal Houtham, McCain’s temper is one other thing that scares me shitless about him. The more I think about it, the more I think we’re damned lucky he wasn’t the one in the WH on 9-11 after all.
Since old Rand seems to subscribe to the philosophy of “I’ve got mine, fuck you, you pathetic pobes. You can starve for all I care”, why is he so offended by the idea of Obama’s socialistic “redistribution of wealth”?
If the little people can find a way to take it from The Great and The Good, why should they be looked down up for doing so? If a particular way of making money is legal, why the bitch?
-Joe